Bashing the Boy Scouts

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Do you now what communism is?

ACLU is doing whatever they can to remove religion out of modern society, which resembles what Communist states have done in the past.
The ACLU seems to favor removing personal responsiblity and making the collective responsible and collectivism is a trait of communism.
The ACLU seems hell-bent on undermining private organizaions and the removal of private association therefore makes everything in society public. Which again is another goal of communism; nothing is private everything is of the community.

Originally posted by: wkabel23
If you do, back up your point instead of spewing out irrational hate-filled thoughts. If you don't, consult a dictionary.

Yes, all of my irrational hate-filled thoughts:

Originally posted by: Babbles
I support gay rights, however I understand why having openly gay adult leaders is considered a bad thing and more importantly they are a private organization and should be able to set their own rules. Also when I was a kid I was agnostic and had no problem getting along. As many others mentioned the Boy Scouts require one to have some sort of religious belief, not neccesarily a Christian God.

I am just all sorts of filled with hate, aren't I? In fact you are so super smart for figure that out, you get a gold star! Congrats, you won!!!!111!1!1111!!

EDIT: ooooh, I see your name hints at the nature of your posts. How clever!

How clever of you to notice that, you really are a very remarkable person.

 

[0roo0roo]

NeborThat's sort of a pickle though, because as far as I know, not even the Klu Klux Klan has been kicked out of a public place... Thus, I find this particular approach to the destruction of the Boyscouts to be unfair. Since the goverment can't endorse any particular beliefs, they must allow equal access or no access, as long as it's the SAME access to all groups of people.

what? the kkk uses community centers and stuff?
we're not talking sidewalks.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

NeborThat's sort of a pickle though, because as far as I know, not even the Klu Klux Klan has been kicked out of a public place... Thus, I find this particular approach to the destruction of the Boyscouts to be unfair. Since the goverment can't endorse any particular beliefs, they must allow equal access or no access, as long as it's the SAME access to all groups of people.

what? the kkk uses community centers and stuff?
we're not talking sidewalks.

Please show me how it is Constitutional to deny EQUAL access to public parks and facilities based on a person's beliefs.

WTF did this idea come from, anyhow?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Nebor


This isn't about the religious aspect. It's about the Boyscouts banning gays from their organization. That got them a top spot on the ACLU hit list, and now anything they do to step out of line will be closely scrutized by ACLU lawyers. We'll win this battle, if not with one mighty blow, then with a million pin pricks.

:thumbsup:

Your reactions to the Scouts are irrational. How are they harming you (or the ACLU?)? They were minding their own business, and -- simply because you disagree with them -- you choose to target them.

That's about as irrational a hate as one can have... and about equal to the irrational hate of gays.

But wait, the Scouts don't target gays outside their org... They simply deny them access to their org.

You've become worse than your enemy.

 

[0roo0roo]

the government should not sponsor discrimination. end of story

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

NeborThat's sort of a pickle though, because as far as I know, not even the Klu Klux Klan has been kicked out of a public place... Thus, I find this particular approach to the destruction of the Boyscouts to be unfair. Since the goverment can't endorse any particular beliefs, they must allow equal access or no access, as long as it's the SAME access to all groups of people.

what? the kkk uses community centers and stuff?
we're not talking sidewalks.

yep, they get free police escorts in most towns too, lots of overtime for the cops, all on the taxpayers dime.

THey have a lot more(and better) lawyers than the Boy Scouts do.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the government should not sponsor discrimination. end of story

The government is NOT sponsoring it. Giving EQUAL access is NOT any kind of sponsorship or endorsement. It is simply allowing individuals who have their own CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED OPINIONS the freedom to enjoy EQUAL ACCESS to public facilities.

Discriminating to stop discrimination is rather hypocritical, is it not?

I guess the left loves the First Amendment freedom of speech and ideas so long as it is speech and ideas they agree with. If not, you are banished.

The hypocrisy here is almost painful.

 

[0roo0roo]

yes it is sponsorship. once you accept government help you are no longer entirely private and lose the rights of entirely private organizations. deal with it. just as you cannot train terrorists on public facilities or tell people to commit violence or kill the president .. there are rules to abide by to gain use of public facilities. its not a free for all or else we'd have publically sponsored churches

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yes it is sponsorship. just as you cannot train terrorists on public facilities or tell people to commit violence or kill the president .. there are rules to abide by to gain use of public facilities. its not a free for all.

They are not promoting violence, inciting a riot, nor are they committing a crime... unless you think thoughts and ideas are crimes.

You need to step back from your bias and see your own hypocrisy here.

And, again, equal access is NOT sponsership. Funding is sponsership. Giving special treatment is sponsership. Equality is NOT sponsership.

What next, do we take away all their rights and throw them in jail for thought crimes?

Quite simply, OO, you are advocating the limiting of rights and freedoms of some based solely on their beliefs.

 

[0roo0roo]

they are promoting descrimination, and clearly promoting religion. both things the government CLEARLY has no place supporting. you need to step back from your lack of reason

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

NeborThat's sort of a pickle though, because as far as I know, not even the Klu Klux Klan has been kicked out of a public place... Thus, I find this particular approach to the destruction of the Boyscouts to be unfair. Since the goverment can't endorse any particular beliefs, they must allow equal access or no access, as long as it's the SAME access to all groups of people.

what? the kkk uses community centers and stuff?
we're not talking sidewalks.

Please show me how it is Constitutional to deny EQUAL access to public parks and facilities based on a person's beliefs.

WTF did this idea come from, anyhow?

Well that reminds me of that the case where the monument of the 10 commandments was banned from the courthouse. IIRC it was banned because there's really no such thing as "equal".

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
they are promoting descrimination, and clearly promoting religion. both things the government CLEARLY has no place supporting. you need to step back from your lack of reason

Um, again, allowing them EQUAL ACCESS is not sponsership. It is allowing them the same freedoms everyone else has. An opposing group is JUST AS FREE to use the same facilities.

Here is the definition of "sponser." Please tell me how allowing everyone equal freedom fits this?

http://dictionary.reference.co...rch?q=sponsor&r=67

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Nebor


This isn't about the religious aspect. It's about the Boyscouts banning gays from their organization. That got them a top spot on the ACLU hit list, and now anything they do to step out of line will be closely scrutized by ACLU lawyers. We'll win this battle, if not with one mighty blow, then with a million pin pricks.

:thumbsup:

Your reactions to the Scouts are irrational. How are they harming you (or the ACLU?)? They were minding their own business, and -- simply because you disagree with them -- you choose to target them.

That's about as irrational a hate as one can have... and about equal to the irrational hate of gays.

But wait, the Scouts don't target gays outside their org... They simply deny them access to their org.

You've become worse than your enemy.

Sorry, the Boyscouts directly harmed me through their exclusionary practices. They hate gay people and act on those feelings. The gay community has acted in self defense, through the ACLU to dismantle the Boyscouts.

You can't make me feel bad for why I dislike the Boyscouts. The fact is, the Boyscouts are losing the battle. In the next 10 years, they'll be forced to either except everyone, or cease to exist. The liberal left shift of America pretty much dictates this will happen. It's pretty simple really, the Boyscouts started it. We're ending it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Nebor


This isn't about the religious aspect. It's about the Boyscouts banning gays from their organization. That got them a top spot on the ACLU hit list, and now anything they do to step out of line will be closely scrutized by ACLU lawyers. We'll win this battle, if not with one mighty blow, then with a million pin pricks.

:thumbsup:

Your reactions to the Scouts are irrational. How are they harming you (or the ACLU?)? They were minding their own business, and -- simply because you disagree with them -- you choose to target them.

That's about as irrational a hate as one can have... and about equal to the irrational hate of gays.

But wait, the Scouts don't target gays outside their org... They simply deny them access to their org.

You've become worse than your enemy.

Sorry, the Boyscouts directly harmed me through their exclusionary practices. They hate gay people and act on those feelings. The gay community has acted in self defense, through the ACLU to dismantle the Boyscouts.

You can't make me feel bad for why I dislike the Boyscouts. The fact is, the Boyscouts are losing the battle. In the next 10 years, they'll be forced to either except everyone, or cease to exist. The liberal left shift of America pretty much dictates this will happen. It's pretty simple really, the Boyscouts started it. We're ending it.

No, you're dreaming. And you've become that which you oppose in the process.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Amused

No, you're dreaming. And you've become that which you oppose in the process.

I said before, they started it. They should have expected backlash and retaliation. I'm not blindly hating like the Boyscouts. They Boyscouts did something to provoke the gay community. They started it. How is that hard to understand?

 

[0roo0roo]

as said above, its clearly a case where public resources can never be divided equally. certain groups compete over limited resources. and leases of government facilities etc. when the government chooses which groups to allow usage, it is in effect subsidizing their activities. and the bs and not denied equal access as long as they abide by the no descrimination rules along with everyone else. its a false arguement.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Amused

No, you're dreaming. And you've become that which you oppose in the process.

I said before, they started it. They should have expected backlash and retaliation. I'm not blindly hating like the Boyscouts. They Boyscouts did something to provoke the gay community. They started it. How is that hard to understand?

Because they simply excluded people from their org. They did not spread that outside their org, nor did their sponser any such activities.

They've caused you no direct harm.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
as said above, its clearly a case where public resources can never be divided equally. certain groups compete over limited resources. and leases of government facilities etc. when the government chooses which groups to allow usage, it is in effect subsidizing their activities. and the bs and not denied equal access as long as they abide by the no descrimination rules along with everyone else. its a false arguement.

So we now limit the freedom of people based on solely on beliefs?

You're treading on dangerous ground here.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Amused

No, you're dreaming. And you've become that which you oppose in the process.

I said before, they started it. They should have expected backlash and retaliation. I'm not blindly hating like the Boyscouts. They Boyscouts did something to provoke the gay community. They started it. How is that hard to understand?

The Boy Scouts tried to annihilate the gay community? thats news to me.

Why not an eye for an eye? Since the BSA doesnt allow gays, how about the Gays dont allow Boy Scouts? problem solved.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Amused

No, you're dreaming. And you've become that which you oppose in the process.

I said before, they started it. They should have expected backlash and retaliation. I'm not blindly hating like the Boyscouts. They Boyscouts did something to provoke the gay community. They started it. How is that hard to understand?

They didn't do anything to provoke the gay community. They don't want anything to do with the gay community. They disagree with homosexuality, and exercise their freedom of speech by excluding them. That's all. They don't assult gay people, or actively cause any kind of confrontation. Gay people wanting in started it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Amused

No, you're dreaming. And you've become that which you oppose in the process.

I said before, they started it. They should have expected backlash and retaliation. I'm not blindly hating like the Boyscouts. They Boyscouts did something to provoke the gay community. They started it. How is that hard to understand?

The Boy Scouts tried to annihilate the gay community? thats news to me.

Why not an eye for an eye? Since the BSA doesnt allow gays, how about the Gays dont allow Boy Scouts? problem solved.

BINGO!!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Amused

No, you're dreaming. And you've become that which you oppose in the process.

I said before, they started it. They should have expected backlash and retaliation. I'm not blindly hating like the Boyscouts. They Boyscouts did something to provoke the gay community. They started it. How is that hard to understand?

I am starting to wonder if there is something wrong with gays, and it has nothing to do with sexual preference.

BTW Amused, props for rational thinking :thumbsup:

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
as said above, its clearly a case where public resources can never be divided equally. certain groups compete over limited resources. and leases of government facilities etc. when the government chooses which groups to allow usage, it is in effect subsidizing their activities. and the bs and not denied equal access as long as they abide by the no descrimination rules along with everyone else. its a false arguement.

So we now limit the freedom of people based on solely on beliefs?

You're treading on dangerous ground here.

are we? we don't allow a teacher to teach that blacks are inferior in public schools do we? i mean after all, he has every right its freedom its public its equal access

government subsidizing discrimination is the truely dangerous thing, and its sad that you can't see it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
as said above, its clearly a case where public resources can never be divided equally. certain groups compete over limited resources. and leases of government facilities etc. when the government chooses which groups to allow usage, it is in effect subsidizing their activities. and the bs and not denied equal access as long as they abide by the no descrimination rules along with everyone else. its a false arguement.

So we now limit the freedom of people based on solely on beliefs?

You're treading on dangerous ground here.

are we? we don't allow a teacher to teach that blacks are inferior in public schools do we? i mean after all, he has every right its freedom its public its equal access

government subsidizing discrimination is the truely dangerous thing, and its sad that you can't see it.

Allowing equal access is not the same as employment. Nor is equal access subsidizing.

Your analogies are, well, nothing of the sort.

A proper analogy would be denying equal access to a group based on political beliefs (or any belief, for that matter).

The true measure of freedom is NOT allowing that which we agree with, but allowing that which offends us most.

You failed.

 

[AFB]

Was this always in OT ?