LethalFang;842118822 said:

---

Yes, doing it while he's still technically an active player, without actually taking on the risks and burdens of an openly gay active player.

---

Technicality or not, he IS still in the game, and "broke the ice." Kudos to him. Now, other gay professional athletes will follow: it is the only way to eliminate bigotry and get this civil rights issue solved in every nook and cranny in our society.

socaliganbear;842118653 said:

---

http://deadspin.com/espns-chris-broussard-says-being-gay-is-an-open-rebel-484708467

Well they DID have Chris Broussard on to remind us that homosexuality and premarital sex are rebellions against God.

---

I watched the segment while getting a haircut this morning and it was absolutely gut wrenching. Even more awkward was that there were people around me agreeing with Broussard. It made me realize how necessary it was what Collins did.

I actually liked Broussard but lost a lot of respect for him. His comments standing alone were bad enough but he got absolutely pwned in the debate by a much more compelling LZ Granderson.

GB54;842118812 said:

---

I actually think this is less profile in courage and more self-aggrandizing, manipulative Furd behavior.

---

+1

Suddenly Collins' political opportunities take off. He'll soon be working for the Clintons and be on any WH staff Hillary is able to buy.

i somewhat understand where broussard is coming from,many factions of christianity say that homosexuality is a sin and thats what they believe if they are the type of christian that has a very strict interpretation of the bible. i go to chuch every now and so but i dont agree with this interpretation. broussard is entitled to his beliefs but i think that it was an ill time to express those views. it only comes off as sounding hateful.

gobears725;842118910 said:

---

i somewhat understand where broussard is coming from,many factions of christianity say that homosexuality is a sin and thats what they believe if they are the type of christian that has a very strict interpretation of the bible. i go to chuch every now and so but i dont agree with this interpretation. broussard is entitled to his beliefs but i think that it was an ill time to express those views. it only comes off as sounding hateful.

---

Brousard stated a very traditional and fundamental Christian doctrine of sin. And he did so in a way that was not exclusive to homosexuality (i.e. he cited heterosexual sex outside of marriage as equally sinful).

I don't see what the big deal is. The first amendment applies to those who wish to express their sexuality (i.e. Collins) just as much as it does to those who wish to express their religion (i.e. Broussard).

I think it is silly for people to say that they are "proud" of one person but "ashamed" of the other for doing essentially the same thing. Civil discourse demands that we allow for all views so long as they are stated respectfully, even if we don't agree with them.

People disagree with each other's lifestyle choices all the time, and not just in the area of sexuality. We need to learn to accept both a gay person's right to express their sexuality and other people's right to say that they believe homosexuality is wrong. The key is for both groups to do so in a sensible, respectful, and peaceful manner. That is why I don't like parades or picket lines. People need to stop screaming and start dialoging sensibly.

I think that Broussard was respectful. He just stated his belief and the reasons behind it. I also think Collins was respectful. They are both entitled to their 1st amendment rights.

i dont think that what broussard did was a big deal.

The Duke!;842118912 said:

---

...People disagree with each other's lifestyle choices all the time, and not just in the area of sexuality. We need to learn to accept both a gay person's right to express their sexuality and other people's right to say that they believe homosexuality is wrong....

---

But, being a gay person is a fact, and not a "lifestyle CHOICE." Whereas, a religious-based opinion is just that: a religious-based "opinion."

In this days and age, such "opinions" are deemed bigotry.

The Duke!;842118912 said:

---

Brousard stated a very traditional and fundamental Christian doctrine of sin. And he did so in a way that was not exclusive to homosexuality (i.e. he cited heterosexual sex outside of marriage as equally sinful).

I don't see what the big deal is. The first amendment applies to those who wish to express their sexuality (i.e. Collins) just as much as it does to those who wish to express their religion (i.e. Broussard).

I think it is silly for people to say that they are "proud" of one person but "ashamed" of the other for doing essentially the same thing. Civil discourse demands that we allow for all views so long as they are stated respectfully, even if we don't agree with them.

People disagree with each other's lifestyle choices all the time, and not just in the area of sexuality. We need to learn to accept both a gay person's right to express their sexuality and other people's right to say that they believe homosexuality is wrong. The key is for both groups to do so in a sensible, respectful, and peaceful manner. That is why I don't like parades or picket lines. People need to stop screaming and start dialoging sensibly.

I think that Broussard was respectful. He just stated his belief and the reasons behind it. I also think Collins was respectful. They are both entitled to their 1st amendment rights.

---

Well stated. Freedom of religion is just as important as freedom of expression and right to privacy. In today's climate one could even argue that what Broussard did took more courage than what Collins did. Just looks at all the heat that Broussard is taking compared to the near unanimous support Collins is getting.

YuSeeBerkeley;842118925 said:

---

Well stated. Freedom of religion is just as important as freedom of expression and right to privacy. In today's climate one could even argue that what Broussard did took more courage than what Collins did. Just looks at all the heat that Broussard is taking compared to the near unanimous support Collins is getting.

---

We have a long history of discrimination in this Country, that over the years was promoted by the extant majority's "freedom of religion and expression" at the time; but, in the end, our "freedom of religion" and expression does not trump discrimination (e.g., 13th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, etc.).

manus;842118924 said:

---

But, being a gay person is a fact, and not a "lifestyle CHOICE." Whereas, a religious-based opinion is just that: a religious-based "opinion."

In this days and age, such "opinions" are deemed bigotry.

---

I am not interested in discussing whether heterosexuality, homosexuality, or confessional affiliation is entirely, partially, or not at all a choice.

But becoming a celebrity and then using your pulpit to advance a message is most certainly a lifestyle choice. So is becoming an ESPN analyst. What Broussard and Collins did are both choices that are fully protected under the first amendment. I respect both of them for exercising their first amendment rights in a thought-out and non agressive manner.

manus;842118929 said:

---

We have a long history of discrimination in this Country, that over the years was promoted by the extant majority's "freedom of religion and expression" at the time; but, in the end, our "freedom of religion" and expression does not trump discrimination (e.g., 13th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, etc.).

---

All sorts of religious and other ideologically-based discrimination are welcome in this country and are protected under the first amendment.

For instance, I hate everyone and everything affiliated with stanfurd athletics. This is perfectly legal.

But several forms of discrimination are indeed outlawed. Thus while I always discriminate against stanfurd and USC in my personal opinions, I do not discriminate in terms of employment, grading, housing, etc..

Broussard did not discriminate in any illegal way whatsoever.

The Duke!;842118912 said:

---

People disagree with each other's lifestyle choices all the time, and not just in the area of sexuality. We need to learn to accept both a gay person's right to express their sexuality and other people's right to say that they believe homosexuality is wrong. The key is for both groups to do so in a sensible, respectful, and peaceful manner. That is why I don't like parades or picket lines. People need to stop screaming and start dialoging sensibly.

I think that Broussard was respectful. He just stated his belief and the reasons behind it. I also think Collins was respectful. They are both entitled to their 1st amendment rights.

---

People also have a right to say that interracial marriage is wrong.

People also have a right to say that Black people are inferior and only belong in the back of the bus.

Such views were pretty mainstream back in the day (especially in the religious community).

So yes, people have a right to say a lot of stupid things. Doesn't mean I need to learn to accept that person's right to do so.

Don't you fret though, in 50 years gay marriage isn't going to be an issue at all in this country. The religious community in this country will reluctantly accept gay marriage just as they have had to accept racial minorities.

I disagree with the comparisons, and I think you might be surprised. But who knows? I am no prophet.

I do not believe the government should define marriage in any way whatsoever. If one Church wants to say two people are married, fine. If another wants to deny it, that's fine too. Same goes with synagogues, books clubs, mosques, jogging groups, intramural kickball teams, etc. I am a libertarian on most social issues, and I think the government needs to leave it up to private individuals and associations to decide for themselves. There should be no tax benefits for marriage, and I don't think the government has any place privileging one non-violent group over another, be they gay, straight, married, single, etc..

But that being said, I disagree with your comparisons. I feel that there may be a difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage in terms of how certain Christian communities will respond to it over time.

ducky23;842118995 said:

---

People also have a right to say that interracial marriage is wrong.

People also have a right to say that Black people are inferior and only belong in the back of the bus.

Such views were pretty mainstream back in the day (especially in the religious community).

So yes, people have a right to say a lot of stupid things. Doesn't mean I need to learn to accept that person's right to do so.

Don't you fret though, in 50 years gay marriage isn't going to be an issue at all in this country. The religious community in this country will reluctantly accept gay marriage just as they have had to accept racial minorities.

---

The Duke!;842118934 said:

---

All sorts of religious and other ideologically-based discrimination are welcome in this country and are protected under the first amendment.

For instance, I hate everyone and everything affiliated with stanfurd athletics. This is perfectly legal.

But several forms of discrimination are indeed outlawed. Thus while I always discriminate against stanfurd and USC in my personal opinions, I do not discriminate in terms of employment, grading, housing, etc..

Broussard did not discriminate in any illegal way whatsoever.

---

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you state it.

All sorts of religous and ideologically based discrimination may be protected under the first amendment but does that make it right, especially if it furthers racism, sexism etc? All Collins said was that he's gay, that's all. What Broussard said was that he didn't agree with the gay lifestyle because the bible says it's wrong which only helps in promoting the problems faced by gays in this country. It promotes discrimination, IMHO. His viewpoint, shared by many, probably will prevent Collins from getting another job in the NBA because many GMs will see what Broussard said and use this to justify their not signing of Collins. It would probably take an enlightened franchise such as the Warriors to take the historical step, except I'm not sure Mark Jackson would be completely on board with this, after reading his quotes on the subject.

We may be able to say discriminatory things and be protected under the first amendment but it would be naive to think that just because there are laws out there to prevent discrimination in terms of employment, housing etc that what Broussard says and thinks about gays on a national stage such as ESPN would have no effect on the hiring, rental etc practices in America. In other words, if you can say discriminatory things about a person's race, religion, sexual background, do you think a law is going to prevent you from practicing discrimination when hiring, grading or renting out to somebody that you said discrimnatory things about?

jyamada;842119015 said:

---

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you state it.

All sorts of religous and ideologically based discrimination may be protected under the first amendment but does that make it right, especially if it furthers racism, sexism etc? All Collins said was that he's gay, that's all. What Broussard said was that he didn't agree with the gay lifestyle because the bible says it's wrong which only helps in promoting the problems faced by gays in this country. It promotes discrimination, IMHO. His viewpoint, shared by many, probably will prevent Collins from getting another job in the NBA because many GMs will see what Broussard said and use this to justify their not signing of Collins. It would probably take an enlightened franchise such as the Warriors to take the historical step, except I'm not sure Mark Jackson would be completely on board with this, after reading his quotes on the subject.

We may be able to say discriminatory things and be protected under the first amendment but it would be naive to think that just because there are laws out there to prevent discrimination in terms of employment, housing etc that what Broussard says and thinks about gays on a national stage such as ESPN would have no effect on the hiring, rental etc practices in America. In other words, if you can say discriminatory things about a person's race, religion, sexual background, do you think a law is going to prevent you from practicing discrimination when hiring, grading or renting out to somebody that you said discrimnatory things about?

---

I agree that we all need to be careful about the unintended consequences about what we say. We ought to be sensitive about perception, as well.

But it is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) that Collins spoke about Christianity in relation to his coming out. That is a bit more complicated than him "just" saying he was gay. An athlete made an implicit theological statement that a sports commentator disagreed with.

I don't get my religion or sexuality from either athletes or sports commentators, and I don't recommend others do so either. But it seems to me that once he brought up religion, it is valid for others to disagree with him.

I don't think Broussard's comments will have any effect on his hiring whatsoever. If I were a GM I would think twice before hiring him. But that is only because he is old, slow, and went to stanfurd. I think GMs will look at him as an old center who might be a decent end of the bench guy if no one better is available.

Yo KAB, Robbie Rodgers is training with the LA Galaxy. Summer window signing?

The Duke!;842119014 said:

---

But that being said, I disagree with your comparisons. I feel that there may be a difference between gay marriage and intramural marriage in terms of how certain Christian communities will respond to it over time.

---

Gay marriage is an absolute non-issue among individuals 30 years or under (of course there is a small minority of younger people who still believe it is wrong). But the point being, our youth view homosexuality drastically different than the youth of just 20 years ago.

50 years from now, gay marriage will be a non issue.

ducky23;842119024 said:

---

Gay marriage is an absolute non-issue among individuals 30 years or under (of course there is a small minority of younger people who still believe it is wrong). But the point being, our youth view homosexuality drastically different than the youth of just 20 years ago.

50 years from now, gay marriage will be a non issue.

---

Well it is a good thing that I turned 31 today. If you had posted this yesterday, you would have been wrong to lecture me about what the "young" people (30 and younger) think. It is amazing how I lost all perspective in just a few hours

And I'm sorry for the earlier typo. My intramural basketball team got eliminated a few weeks ago, and I still have that on my mind. I meant "interracial."

jyamada;842119015 said:

---

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you state it.

All sorts of religous and ideologically based discrimination may be protected under the first amendment but does that make it right, especially if it furthers racism, sexism etc? All Collins said was that he's gay, that's all. What Broussard said was that he didn't agree with the gay lifestyle because the bible says it's wrong which only helps in promoting the problems faced by gays in this country. It promotes discrimination, IMHO. His viewpoint, shared by many, probably will prevent Collins from getting another job in the NBA because many GMs will see what Broussard said and use this to justify their not signing of Collins. It would probably take an enlightened franchise such as the Warriors to take the historical step, except I'm not sure Mark Jackson would be completely on board with this, after reading his quotes on the subject.

We may be able to say discriminatory things and be protected under the first amendment but it would be naive to think that just because there are laws out there to prevent discrimination in terms of employment, housing etc that what Broussard says and thinks about gays on a national stage such as ESPN would have no effect on the hiring, rental etc practices in America. In other words, if you can say discriminatory things about a person's race, religion, sexual background, do you think a law is going to prevent you from practicing discrimination when hiring, grading or renting out to somebody that you said discrimnatory things about?

---

This is the problem with the public's consumption of media in today's age. Some person catches one snippet and runs with it. Broussard was specifically asked about Collins' claim to being a Christian while being openly gay. Broussard provided his thoughts as a Christian. Nowhere in that statement did Broussard say that Collins should be mistreated in any manner, and it by no means constituted hate speech. He simply stated that based on his beliefs and what he's gleaned from scripture, that any person who lives in open, unrepentant sin whether it be homosexual, fornication, or pre-marital sex among heterosexuals, cannot be considered a Christian in his eyes.

I think that last part is really the only complaint I would have. No individual should question the faith and salvation of another because that is something for God to judge. However, I do not have a problem with Broussard sharing his religious beliefs. Just as I do not mind Collins' sharing about his sexual orientation. Both have equal protection under the laws of this country.

Also, you need to look at the public's reaction to Collins and Broussard. One is being crucified in the press while the other one is being celebrated. Your claim that Broussard's statement will somehow prevent Collins from getting another job in the NBA is preposterous. If Collins fails to get a job in the NBA, it will be because he's a 34 year old middling center at the end of his career and not because every GM in the NBA is homophobic. Collins said so himself, the country is ready to support a gay athlete. I get that people want everyone to support Collins, but let's remind ourselves that tolerance is not a one way street. People are entitled to have differing opinions. That's the beauty of this country.

jyamada;842119015 said:

---

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you state it.

All sorts of religous and ideologically based discrimination may be protected under the first amendment but does that make it right, especially if it furthers racism, sexism etc? All Collins said was that he's gay, that's all. What Broussard said was that he didn't agree with the gay lifestyle because the bible says it's wrong which only helps in promoting the problems faced by gays in this country. It promotes discrimination, IMHO. His viewpoint, shared by many, probably will prevent Collins from getting another job in the NBA because many GMs will see what Broussard said and use this to justify their not signing of Collins. It would probably take an enlightened franchise such as the Warriors to take the historical step, except I'm not sure Mark Jackson would be completely on board with this, after reading his quotes on the subject.

We may be able to say discriminatory things and be protected under the first amendment but it would be naive to think that just because there are laws out there to prevent discrimination in terms of employment, housing etc that what Broussard says and thinks about gays on a national stage such as ESPN would have no effect on the hiring, rental etc practices in America. In other words, if you can say discriminatory things about a person's race, religion, sexual background, do you think a law is going to prevent you from practicing discrimination when hiring, grading or renting out to somebody that you said discrimnatory things about?

---

Broussard is more likely to lose his job than Collins. Neither has anything to do with the first amendment as I see it-merely with commercial pressures from advertisers or the network afraid of adverse publicity. Collins will be hired for similar reasons-to show that the NBA is "inclusive" and modern and not prejudiced against washed up centers who happen to be gay and have the Kennedys, Obamas and Clintons as friends.

The Duke!;842118912 said:

---

Brousard stated a very traditional and fundamental Christian doctrine of sin. And he did so in a way that was not exclusive to homosexuality (i.e. he cited heterosexual sex outside of marriage as equally sinful).

I don't see what the big deal is. The first amendment applies to those who wish to express their sexuality (i.e. Collins) just as much as it does to those who wish to express their religion (i.e. Broussard).

I think it is silly for people to say that they are "proud" of one person but "ashamed" of the other for doing essentially the same thing. Civil discourse demands that we allow for all views so long as they are stated respectfully, even if we don't agree with them.

People disagree with each other's lifestyle choices all the time, and not just in the area of sexuality. We need to learn to accept both a gay person's right to express their sexuality and other people's right to say that they believe homosexuality is wrong. The key is for both groups to do so in a sensible, respectful, and peaceful manner. That is why I don't like parades or picket lines. People need to stop screaming and start dialoging sensibly.

I think that Broussard was respectful. He just stated his belief and the reasons behind it. I also think Collins was respectful. They are both entitled to their 1st amendment rights.

---

YuSeeBerkeley;842118925 said:

---

Well stated. Freedom of religion is just as important as freedom of expression and right to privacy. In today's climate one could even argue that what Broussard did took more courage than what Collins did. Just looks at all the heat that Broussard is taking compared to the near unanimous support Collins is getting.

---

'Well stated' only if you don't understand the first thing about the First Amendment. How do people live in this country and not understand how our system of laws works? Is Chris Broussard a law? Is Jason Collins a law? No? Then the First Amendment doesn't apply to them. The First Amendment only concerns the laws that Congress is allowed to write. Is anyone trying to write anti-Broussard laws? Is anyone from the government trying to silence Collins? No. Then the First Amendment has no part in the conversation. Sheesh.

Collins is acknowledging he's gay, which could affect his career prospects (for better or worse) and bring tons of attention that he doesn't necessarily want. That takes courage. Broussard is announcing that he doesn't like the things gay people do, and he's blaming it on the Bible. I guess it takes courage to be a douchebag on TV, but not really the kind of courage that seems admirable.

To get back to Duke's point: "We need to learn to accept both a gay person's right to express their sexuality and other people's right to say that they believe homosexuality is wrong." No we f*cking don't -- there's a difference between saying "I like the color blue" and "I don't think people should like the color blue." You seem to be saying that Jason can say he's gay, Broussard can say it's wrong, but the rest of us should not say anything about Broussard's words. Seriously? If Jason Collins was announcing that he didn't like Chris Broussard's marriage or choice of sexual positions or favorite color and blaming it on the Bible, I might agree that their words deserved the same sort of consideration.

YuSeeBerkeley;842119029 said:

---

This is the problem with the public's consumption of media in today's age. Some person catches one snippet and runs with it. Broussard was specifically asked about Collins' claim to being a Christian while being openly gay. Broussard provided his thoughts as a Christian. Nowhere in that statement did Broussard say that Collins should be mistreated in any manner, and it by no means constituted hate speech. He simply stated that based on his beliefs and what he's gleaned from scripture, that any person who lives in open, unrepentant sin whether it be homosexual, fornication, or pre-marital sex among heterosexuals, cannot be considered a Christian in his eyes.

I think that last part is really the only complaint I would have. No individual should question the faith and salvation of another because that is something for God to judge. However, I do not have a problem with Broussard sharing his religious beliefs. Just as I do not mind Collins' sharing about his sexual orientation. Both have equal protection under the laws of this country.

---

Do you have a link to the full interview or transcript? I've only seen his answer, not the question. If that's the context of the question, his answer does make a little more sense, although it's weird for him to say that pretty much everyone in the NBA -- and probably most of the unmarried people in this country -- aren't real Christians because they have premarital sex. I think he should be fired just for having such an upside-down view of the world.

I don't think Broussard deserves special criticism since millions of people think just like him, which is a sad thing.

Where was all this love and support from the Prez and the like when Tebow was catching hell? GO BEARS!!!

GB54;842119031 said:

---

Broussard is more likely to lose his job than Collins. Neither has anything to do with the first amendment as I see it-merely with commercial pressures from advertisers or the network afraid of adverse publicity. Collins will be hired for similar reasons-to show that the NBA is "inclusive" and modern and not prejudiced against washed up centers who happen to be gay and have the Kennedys, Obamas and Clintons as friends.

---

Broussard may lose his job but he'll just as easily find another. I'm curious to see how NBA GMs react to Collins coming out. We'll never know the answer but I do think Collins would have been better off first signing with a team next year, then coming out. I hope you're right about Collins finding employment in the NBA next year.....it would be an historical first step.

BearyWhite;842119036 said:

---

To get back to Duke's point: "We need to learn to accept both a gay person's right to express their sexuality and other people's right to say that they believe homosexuality is wrong." No we f*cking don't -- there's a difference between saying "I like the color blue" and "I don't think people should like the color blue." You seem to be saying that Jason can say he's gay, Broussard can say it's wrong, but the rest of us should not say anything about Broussard's words. Seriously? If Jason Collins was announcing that he didn't like Chris Broussard's marriage or choice of sexual positions or favorite color and blaming it on the Bible, I might agree that their words deserved the same sort of consideration.

---

This is ridiculous. I never said or implied anything of the sort. Of course you can disagree with Broussard. I said that I respected them both for voicing their opinions in a logical and civil manner. I disagree with you not because of your limited view of the 1st amendment or your views on homosexuality, but rather because you are an agressive grandstander who is putting words in my mouth.

People are free to disagree with either Broussard or Collins. I think both voiced their opinions regarding religion and sexuality in a respectful and civil manner.

uchighlander;842119042 said:

---

Where was all this love and support from the Prez and the like when Tebow was catching hell? GO BEARS!!!

---

Tebow's announcement that he was gay was in the local papers and not the cover of SI, so didn't get as much attention.

jyamada;842119043 said:

---

Broussard may lose his job but he'll just as easily find another. I'm curious to see how NBA GMs react to Collins coming out. We'll never know the answer but I do think Collins would have been better off first signing with a team next year, then coming out. I hope you're right about Collins finding employment in the NBA next year.....it would be an historical first step.

---

Actually I think this is win-win for Collins. He can now sign or if not signed wind up with another career, a book deal, a movie, or a job as advocator/commentator. In any case he just bought himself a new career with no downside. In my own view this was all part of his Entitled Gay Furd calculus.

(It's good that he did it but people comparing this with Jackie Robinson are totally retarded). Edit: not meaning to imply that you said this, jymada

The Duke!;842119045 said:

---

This is ridiculous. I never said or implied anything of the sort. Of course you can disagree with Broussard. I said that I respected them both for voicing their opinions in a logical and civil manner. I disagree with you not because of your limited view of the 1st amendment or your views on homosexuality, but rather because you are an agressive grandstander who is putting words in my mouth.

People are free to disagree with either Broussard or Collins. I think both voiced their opinions regarding religion and sexuality in a respectful and civil manner.

---

Forgive me for misunderstanding your point. Broussard says that gay people can't be Christian, and that his religion guides not just his own conduct but that of others as well. Why does it matter whether he says such things in a civil manner or jumping off his desk yelling?

You wrote that "I think it is silly for people to say that they are "proud" of one person but "ashamed" of the other for doing essentially the same thing." I'll ask again: How is it the same thing to say "I have red hair" and "The Bible says that no one should have red hair"?

Can you explain how my view of the 1st Amendment is "limited"? Curious what makes you think that.

The Duke!;842119045 said:

---

I disagree with you not because of your limited view of the 1st amendment

---

As someone who has read probably too many cases about the 1st amendment then is healthy, I am interested to hear more about this "limited view of the 1st amendment."

unfortunately bearywhite is not the one to interpret the 1st amendment. neither are you. unfortunately, the court has already interpreted the 1st amendment and I don't think their interpretation is the same as yours.

but the thing is, christians dont follow the bible word for word. Theres some things in there that are completely non applicable to modern society. they pick and choose like anyone else. for example,

12. Deut. 25:11
When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.

Ducky and Beary -- you both asked for similar clarification, so I will answer you both at once. Then I am heading out for a drink to celebrate my birthday in one of my favorite French cities (La Rochelle). Please forgive me if I don't respond further. But I can just see the next few days of my life being sucked into a vacuum if I don't bow out now.

My understanding is that Collins introduced he topic of religion. Broussard responded to this with a very traditional view of sexual sin. I am a professional historian of Western Christianity, and I can affirm that Broussard's view is nothing out of the ordinary. If one takes the doctrine of sola scriptura as one's primary epistemological prism, it makes a lot of sense. An athlete asserted a theological position and he responded in a cogent manner and in a civil tone. Personally, I would prefer if athletes and sports commentators not discuss religion in the public realm, but I don't think either of them was wrong to express their religious views.

As far as the 1st amendment goes, Broussard is covered by his job as a correspondent to express his views (freedom of the press).

The Supreme Court has interpreted the 1st amendment to provide broader protections than simply protecting individuals against congressional legislation (i.e. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District; Healy v. James). The Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment not only restricts the ability of the US Congress to restrict liberty, but also that it grants positive liberty to individuals to express themselves (Simon and Schuster v. Crime Victims Board).

That is all. Gotta go polish off some wine.

gobears725;842119056 said:

---

but the thing is, christians dont follow the bible word for word. Theres some things in there that are completely non applicable to modern society. they pick and choose like anyone else. for example,

12. Deut. 25:11
When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.

---

Thanks for coming up with something we can all agree on.

YuSeeBerkeley;842119029 said:

---

I think that last part is really the only complaint I would have. No individual should question the faith and salvation of another because that is something for God to judge. However, I do not have a problem with Broussard sharing his religious beliefs. Just as I do not mind Collins' sharing about his sexual orientation. Both have equal protection under the laws of this country.

---

Right, the Constitution protects the right to be a douchebag, and the right to criticize douchebags.

YuSeeBerkeley;842119029 said:

---

Your claim that Broussard's statement will somehow prevent Collins from getting another job in the NBA is preposterous.

---

I think you missed his point -- I think it was that Broussard's opinion is shared by some owners and GMs and that may prevent them from signing Collins. As you say though, he has enough negatives as a prospect that we would never know.

gobears725;842119056 said:

---

but the thing is, christians dont follow the bible word for word. Theres some things in there that are completely non applicable to modern society. they pick and choose like anyone else. for example,

12. Deut. 25:11
When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.

---

Most sola scriptura protestants make a distinction between the moral, civil, and ceremonial laws of the OT. The moral (including sexuality) is forever binding. The Civil has expired with the state of ancient Israel. The Ceremonial was fulfilled by Christ.

Lots of Christians make many caveats and exceptions to this breakdown. But this is just to explain that this is not hypocrisy or picking and choosing. Deut. 25:11 was the civil law that bound ancient Israel, not moral law that Christians believe binds all people at all time.

BearyWhite;842119046 said:

---

Tebow's announcement that he was gay was in the local papers and not the cover of SI, so didn't get as much attention.

---

That's the problem when hypocrites think they're funny....you get stupid people saying stupid things. GO BEARS!!!