To me, the issue regarding homosexuals in the Scouts has always been about freedom, meaning the freedom of the Scouts to make their own decision, free of coercion. Part of being a group is having the right to exclude others, and that is a fundamental right (freedom of association; see the First Amendment). Being a gay Scout master isn't a right at all; period. If every group has to admit anyone, then what is a group but a random collection of people?I also believe that people should be able to define marriage, either including or excluding homosexuals, free of coercion from the media. (I realize that 'free of media coercion' is a pipe dream, given that they always have an agenda.) But the point is that rights are not automatic/inalienable unless they are in the Constitution.Funny how libs love to bandy about the so-called 'rights' of people that are nothing more than preferences, yet rights that are enshrined in the Constitution (property rights, the right to bear arms, etc.) are constantly under attack from the left as being out-of-date, mean-spirited, what have you.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar