Brian Walters is a good man. A man of conviction. If you dont live in ward five you have no say. I will tell you that his reelection will be something to watch.

I don't think Baptists should have the right to assemble because I disagree with the disgusting lifestyle they have chosen. Screw the Constitution, and don't question my opinion. I'm just doing what the majority want me to do...shrug. And of course I was elected to be a robot for the people, not uphold the Constitution or anything silly like that. I mean I'm not bigoted or anything, of course. I just don't want to allow the Baptists to gather any more than I'd want a group of pedophiles to gather. Not that I'm comparing pedophiles and Baptists in any way, of course. Oh, and I stand for faith, family, and freedom, and you can go to my website to contribute to my campaign to stop the Baptist pedophiles. Er, uhm, I mean Baptists AND pedophiles, which I'm not at all comparing. Did I mention family values and that I'm not a bigot?

Brian Walters is a good man. A man of conviction. If you dont live in ward five you have no say. I will tell you that his reelection will be something to watch.

I predict he wins in a landslide, if he decides to run for re-election. He may have his eye on a bigger political stage such as State.

I don't care that he's a homophobe. If he wants to hold an anti-gay parade, I say go for it.

What I do care is that he used his official position to further his personal beliefs, which I believe is misuse of position. He chose to cast a vote that, if passed by the majority, would have been unconstitutional. I agree with an earlier post that he could've chosen to abstain. But he didn't and that's a problem.

He did no such thing and you need to stop.
Once again, what he said was that he couldn't support this event, just like he wouldn't support wife beaters or pedophiles.

He at no time compared the 3, stop trying to make something out of nothing and "troll" on to the next issue.

That is exactly what he did. There was no need to bring the criminal element into his comments - he knew precisly what he was saying and that what he said was a very intentional link between gays and criminal behavior.

He could easily not said anything and voted no. Or as mentioned here, merely abstained. Instead he choose to make illinformed and ignorant comments.

Your obviously a supporter of Mr. Walters. That fact shouldn't cause you to be blind to his obvious misstatements. Don't be calling me a troll because I pointed out what the real issue/problem with this story and your boy.

When you constantly give false information, try to make an issue out of everything, not just on this thread but others as well----that's trolling.

What are you talking about? Link it.

Not taking sides, but methinks there is some fallout on this board from MAPS 3and the Firefighter negotiations.

That is exactly what he did. There was no need to bring the criminal element into his comments - he knew precisly what he was saying and that what he said was a very intentional link between gays and criminal behavior.

He could easily not said anything and voted no. Or as mentioned here, merely abstained. Instead he choose to make illinformed and ignorant comments.

Your obviously a supporter of Mr. Walters. That fact shouldn't cause you to be blind to his obvious misstatements. Don't be calling me a troll because I pointed out what the real issue/problem with this story and your boy.

Definitely not a Brian Walters supporter, if I lived in Ward 5, I would cast a vote for anyone but him. I do, however, support his right to vote how he chooses, on any matter. (Doubt he runs for re-election)
For people to continue to state that he compares gays to wife beaters and pedophiles is asinine to say the least.

That is exactly what he did. There was no need to bring the criminal element into his comments - he knew precisly what he was saying and that what he said was a very intentional link between gays and criminal behavior.

He could easily not said anything and voted no. Or as mentioned here, merely abstained. Instead he choose to make illinformed and ignorant comments.

Your obviously a supporter of Mr. Walters. That fact shouldn't cause you to be blind to his obvious misstatements. Don't be calling me a troll because I pointed out what the real issue/problem with this story and your boy.

Definitely not a Brian Walters supporter, if I lived in Ward 5, I would cast a vote for anyone but him. I do, however, support his right to vote how he chooses, on any matter. (Doubt he runs for re-election)
For people to continue to state that he compares gays to wife beaters and pedophiles is asinine to say the least.

I agree Junkie, but he could have easily found less controversial terms to describe his feelings. I think he did that on purpose to provoke things.

THIS... is the problem with this douche bag... NOT the vote itself.

pedophiles and abusers.... gimme a break... this BS logic rears it's head over and over and over....:fighting3

Hmmm, seem to recall similar statements from former Mayor Humphreys (alluded to in the story starting the thread). Here is one from him:


Humphreys said, “They [homosexuals] have a right to behave that way if they want to. But I don’t think they have the right to use public facilities to advance their philosophy, for the same reasons that Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and religious groups don’t.”

and


Under threat of a lawsuit charging a violation of the First Amendment, the city relented and allowed the gay pride banners to reappear this year. Mayor Kirk Humphreys just couldn’t understand why. “We are not talking about free speech here,” he opined. “We are talking about paid advertising.” He said the city was free to pick and choose the messages that appear on public property, just like private companies can choose the messages that appear on their property.

Seeing some of his comments on Flashpoint, doesn't seem like he has changed his stance much.

And don't forget Mayor Cornett's anti-gay position. A quick Google search found quite a few Gay oriented blogs condemning Cornett.


2001: “Mick Cornett rejects endorsement from Cimarron Alliance Group.”


Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett was too busy spewing hatred against gay people and their causes in his Fifth District U.S. Congressional political campaign to even write a welcome letter for the festival’s guide. Cornett, a Republican, recently claimed credit in a campaign advertisement for reshelving non-sexual, innocuous gay-themed children’s books in the area’s public libraries.

According to other blogs, they went into further detail alleging Cornett was teaming up with Sally Kern's husband to get homosexual themed books off OKC library shelves.

Of course, when it suits his purpose, he didn't have any problem going on Ellen to promote his diet.

My point in bringing this up is, (not specifically addressed to Platemaker) do those that are posting against Walters have the same problems with Mayor's Humphreys & Cornett or is this a personal thing against Walters? Don't want to vote for Walters for his anti-gay stance? That is your right, but you also shouldn't ever vote for Humphreys or Cornett then either.

For that matter, does those posting against Walters have the same attitude for some of the Thunder ownership group? Do you boycott anything to do with the Thunder because of it?

Some pride parade pictures from flickr:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3345/4619740305_4058bbc80b_m.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3712356209_ac27bd06cd_m.jpg

There are plenty others with public nudity. Curse you that made me prove you wrong (platemaker). These are just some of the ones that are acceptable to post.

If this is what anyone calls acceptable public behavior, and if this is what people think instills pride in a group of people, then I would serious question your ability to discern. These parades are freak shows and little more, and don't belong in public.

Brian Walters is a good man. A man of conviction. If you dont live in ward five you have no say. I will tell you that his reelection will be something to watch.

Interesting approach. I guess I fail to see how this is valid. Walters ultimately serves for Ward 5 but he makes a lot of decisions that are not ward specific. Activity permits have nothing to do with what ward you live in.

I guess by your logic if we have certain councilmen who vote against the fire unions latest proposal you have no say right? Since they aren't your councilman?

Hmmm, seem to recall similar statements from former Mayor Humphreys (alluded to in the story starting the thread). Here is one from him:



and



Seeing some of his comments on Flashpoint, doesn't seem like he has changed his stance much.

And don't forget Mayor Cornett's anti-gay position. A quick Google search found quite a few Gay oriented blogs condemning Cornett.





According to other blogs, they went into further detail alleging Cornett was teaming up with Sally Kern's husband to get homosexual themed books off OKC library shelves.

Of course, when it suits his purpose, he didn't have any problem going on Ellen to promote his diet.

My point in bringing this up is, (not specifically addressed to Platemaker) do those that are posting against Walters have the same problems with Mayor's Humphreys & Cornett or is this a personal thing against Walters? Don't want to vote for Walters for his anti-gay stance? That is your right, but you also shouldn't ever vote for Humphreys or Cornett then either.

For that matter, does those posting against Walters have the same attitude for some of the Thunder ownership group? Do you boycott anything to do with the Thunder because of it?

I know this won't be very popular with the general opinion of people in this thread, but I honestly don't think what Mayor Humphreys said was anything that bad. He seemed to have the best grasp of the issue out of all three.

As for Cornett, I can't defend that populist.

I thought elected officials are supposed to vote for their constituents and not their own personal belief systems?

I've thought this too, but I have a really hard time believing the majority of Oklahomans want the strictest abortion laws in the country (yes, I know a lot of Oklahomans are opposed to abortion, but not sure if the majority of them want the laws to go as far as the recent ones did) even though the legislature voted overwhelmingly for them...

Or when Inhofe blocked the procedure to raise the liability cap for oil spills - very hard time believing that any of his constituents would agree with him on that stance at this point in time (except for the oil company execs here in OK :-) )

Not sure how many elected officials really vote the way their constituents think. How would they know? Generally there are no polls, no questionnaires, no nothing (at least none I've seen in all the places I've lived), so not sure how they know how their constituents feel at all...

My point in bringing this up is, (not specifically addressed to Platemaker) do those that are posting against Walters have the same problems with Mayor's Humphreys & Cornett or is this a personal thing against Walters? Don't want to vote for Walters for his anti-gay stance? That is your right, but you also shouldn't ever vote for Humphreys or Cornett then either.

For that matter, does those posting against Walters have the same attitude for some of the Thunder ownership group? Do you boycott anything to do with the Thunder because of it?

Don't confuse them with facts. They can't be upset with those two forward thinking gentlemen. Those two have the best interest of OKC in mind at all times.

Huh? I think you're putting words in people's mouths and you've completely satirized and misinterpreted progressive-minded individuals on this board.

It's good to see there is someone on the City Council that is not afraid to stand up for what they believe in. At least he did something that nearly two-thirds of registered voters in OKC don't do...he voted!

Don't confuse them with facts. They can't be upset with those two forward thinking gentlemen. Those two have the best interest of OKC in mind at all times.

Wrong. I think there are plenty of people who can agree with or approve of their vision for the city in terms of urban development, and yet disagree with some of their other political views. There are a lot of people who don't like partisan politics and can appreciate that both parties (and some of the other parties) may have members with valid ideas and beliefs and the reverse.

pround2Bsooner...I usually stay away from ignorant posts, but for you I will make an exception...the OKC Gay Pride Parade is perfectly legal. You could take your family and not be offended. Many people along the parade route set up lawn chairs and have cookouts. Open your mind a bit and you'll see there's nothing to fear.

pround2Bsooner...I usually stay away from ignorant posts, but for you I will make an exception...the OKC Gay Pride Parade is perfectly legal. You could take your family and not be offended. Many people along the parade route set up lawn chairs and have cookouts. Open your mind a bit and you'll see there's nothing to fear.

I've not been to the OKC parade but when I happened upon the one in NYC years ago, there was more than enough completely outrageous behavior to be beyond offended and would never, EVER take children to it. The one in Denver is not quite as overboard but there is enough male nudity and overt sexual activity in and around the parade that I wouldn't take a child to that one, either.

If OKC wants to host one, I have no problem with it but don't try to pass it off as family entertainment like the Christmas parade. It is what it is.

Not sure if I would ever take my family some day to the OKC Gay Pride Parade..but that doesn't really have any bearing on their rights however. They stay in a pretty secluded little "gay enclave" away from the "family-approved" areas.

Diversity is something different. It isn't any specific group and it isn't favoring one specific group over another. It is recognizing what you are good at and adding some of what you're not so good at. We can all recognize that OKC is a great place for families, so why should we go out of our way to make it an awful place for the gays?

mugofbeer...you've never been to the OKC parade but lack of information didn't stop you from posting ignorantly = awesome 4 u. The OKC parade is overseen by the police who would arrest anyone who tried to do anything like you describe. Actually there are families with children who line the parade route. Again, go see for yourself the horrors.

Spartan, I expected better from you. There are gay people everywhere. Some gay people have families. Where do you think they hang out?

And for anyone else who wants to post ignorant bigoted statements...GO SEE THE PARADE FOR YOURSELF. I think you will find these people aren't the demons you make them out to be.

OUT.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Are we still talking about this?

Get over it, it is done, move on.

I am sure that there is something a little more important than this, that you the self named problem solvers of OKC can focus your efforts and attention on.

We should have a straight festival, too. Would love to have the streets filled with beautiful naked women! Now that is something I'd attend!

Spartan, I expected better from you. There are gay people everywhere. Some gay people have families. Where do you think they hang out?

Well, my comment was that I myself am not going to be at the gay parade BUT the awesome thing is you don't need my approval and you sure as hell don't need Brian Walters' approval. If we all needed Brian Walters' approval, we're all damned. I like downtown..that's already one strike against me as a person.

Earlywine, I realize that some gay people have families and that's great..wasn't trying to slight them at all.

We should have a straight festival, too. Would love to have the streets filled with beautiful naked women! Now that is something I'd attend!
That's what many biker rallies have become, like the ROT Rally (http://www.rotrally.com/) next weekend here in Austin, it's nothing more than an "adult spring break"....although all the women are not "beautiful. In fact many (women and men) should cover up more than they do.

That's what many biker rallies have become, like the ROT Rally (http://www.rotrally.com/) next weekend here in Austin, it's nothing more than an "adult spring break"....although all the women are not "beautiful. In fact many (women and men) should cover up more than they do.

Good point. I'm not into the whole chain and tatoo thing anyway.

OSUfan, quite simply if you don't live in ward 5 you can't vote for or against Walters, as in novote, no say!

Good point. I'm not into the whole chain and tatoo thing anyway.
Well, most of them are RUB's playing weekend bad boy and not the Bandido types.

spartan I would like to know those offical "family approved area's". I believe all those family approved areas are for anyone that abides by the laws regardless of race, education, marital status or sexual identity.

The point is the elected officals have been elected to abide by the laws that have been passed. If the elected officals decided not to allow the parade, there would be a lawsuit because they would be breaking the law. Thus the taxpayers would have to pay for the lawsuit..... Remember years past when Humphreys didn't like the gay banners and had them removed and tried to pass resolutions to keep them from happening. The city was sued and lost. The elected officials are expected to know the laws an uphold them..... that is the oath that they pledge when they take office.

The reality is there are gay households in every sector of the city, there are gay workers in businesses throughout the city and there are gay consumers throughout the city.

We should have a straight festival, too. Would love to have the streets filled with beautiful naked women! Now that is something I'd attend!

I think you are on to something here. Would the City Council approve a parade permit for a group of nudist that want to show their pride in being nudist?

There are straight festivals all over OKC every Sunday and Wednesday. They call it church.

I know this won't be very popular with the general opinion of people in this thread, but I honestly don't think what Mayor Humphreys said was anything that bad. He seemed to have the best grasp of the issue out of all three.

As for Cornett, I can't defend that populist.

Spartan, He wasn't totally off base but the Neo Nazis and Ku Klux Klan organizations are for the most part advocating things that are illegal which the gay organizations aren't. I could be wrong, but I don't think religious groups have had problems getting city approval for activities as long as public funds aren't involved. Certainly religious groups have used venues such as the Cox Center.

mugofbeer...you've never been to the OKC parade but lack of information didn't stop you from posting ignorantly = awesome 4 u. The OKC parade is overseen by the police who would arrest anyone who tried to do anything like you describe. Actually there are families with children who line the parade route. Again, go see for yourself the horrors.


And for anyone else who wants to post ignorant bigoted statements...GO SEE THE PARADE FOR YOURSELF. I think you will find these people aren't the demons you make them out to be.

I fell for that line once...have a good friend that is always trying to get me to go (its just a parade...normal stuff...an excuse to get drunk and have fun). So one year I went...and while there wasn't full blown nudity etc, there was certainly plenty to offend many Oklahoman's sensibilities. There was plenty of barely clothed bodies (not much more exposure than what you would see at White Water bay, but then again there is a right time and place for things and the same folks at White Water would be inappropriate outside of that environment). But there was plenty of the gay version of "Girls Gone Wild" exposure, groping (self and others) etc.

Have to remember this is one of the redest states there is and fairly conservative even on the Democrat side. What my friend considered to be normal, depends a lot on what your definition of normal is. What is acceptable behavior/attire in the bedroom or even in the confines of a private business (the gay clubs/bars) is entirely out of place in the middle of the day on OKC public streets. And yes, for some unexplained reason, there are children present. A couple of years ago I think they really crossed the line when they included a kids/family activity area. Now I don't know where that precisely is and how near the other activities but even with the other, it isn't a minor free zone at all. The only minor free zone is inside the bars.

There were police present, but it was a minimal amount and they basically stayed on the fringes. Am sure that if someone engaged in a sex act on one of the floats or something that they would have stepped in, but for the most part they didn't get involved. They certainly didn't do anything to stop the flashing etc.

A lot of people in this state are way too uptight. They should get out more.

No thanks, I have better things to go do. Watching a parade for something I dont condone is the same as giving tacit approval for the very thing I dont condone.

What is ironic is that most of the gay people that I know wouldn't be caught dead near a gay pride parade. It is typically for the "Out and In Your Face" types or the exhibitionists (gay or straight) and not the gay people who live their lives like most every other person whether straight or gay. Most of them that I know would prefer it not to happen as they feel that small segment of their population furthers that stereotype.

What is ironic is that most of the gay people that I know wouldn't be caught dead near a gay pride parade. It is typically for the "Out and In Your Face" types or the exhibitionists (gay or straight) and not the gay people who live their lives like most every other person whether straight or gay. Most of them that I know would prefer it not to happen as they feel that small segment of their population furthers that stereotype.

So true. My Uncle is gay and very ative in the gay community in the Ft. Worth / Dallas are, in his own words, said events are more for attention starved individuals rather then people trying to improve or promote a lifestyle or position.

What is ironic is that most of the gay people that I know wouldn't be caught dead near a gay pride parade. It is typically for the "Out and In Your Face" types or the exhibitionists (gay or straight) and not the gay people who live their lives like most every other person whether straight or gay. Most of them that I know would prefer it not to happen as they feel that small segment of their population furthers that stereotype.

This defines my gay friends perfectly. They don't bother patronizing the bars or even acknowledge the parade thing. They go to work, make a living, enjoy life as their income allows, and leave the personal things at home in the bedroom. Something that more people need to abide by...gay or straight. There is no reason to flaunt your sexuality in public. However I always laugh when the closed minded people get all bent out of shape at two guys or girls holding hands (well more so with the guys), but its okay for a guy and a girl to get pretty raunchy in public with their "affection."

The base argument here should be a council person should uphold and understand the law, if they don't agree to something just abstain. Yes this is Oklahoma, one of the most religious states in the union...well that's not fair to other people of different faiths. One of the more faith-based states that are rooted in the literal (but selective) translation of the Bible that incorporates it into daily business and politics. Is this bad? Not at all. Things are progressing in the state to ease back a little, but a lot of that has to do with population replacement. As companies open up offices here they transplant people from areas of the country that are more...ummm...advanced down the path of opening up. There is also the natural transition as well. Most of the existing feelings and attitudes are rooted in the old crowd and not the younger one (though there is still some there). As the older population moves to their retirement locations or passes away, things will evolve.

Will we ever be as open as the East and West coasts? Probably not for another 20-30 years.

BluedogOK siad it perfectly. Agree with RC and Venture as well. I will say this, Oklahoma has been "behind the curve" for a long time. Things that happen on the east/west coasts take a while to catch on here (with internet etc, think the time warp gap has diminshed some, but it is still there). In some ways that is a good thing.

To answer the last question (Will we ever be as open as the East and West coasts? Probably not for another 20-30 years.) Maybe not that long but we wont be what they will be like in those 20 - 30 years, more likely we will be like they are today.

I remember when Threes Company was considered terribly risque and some stations refused to show it (maybe even here in Oklahoma). The morality police were all over it. 30 years later it is considered "classic" tv and quite tame. Joyce DeWitt (Janet) even remarked on how much things had changed since it premiered).

And with Threes Company have to remember (like many "American" tv shows, they were based on British sitcoms, in this case, Man About the House) which are generally a few years ahead of the USA. Threes Company was one where they just Americanized the scripts (elevator instead of lift). But they were shot virtually verbatim. The characters of Chrissy and Janet were switched for the U.S and Robin became Jack. But even the spin off series (The Ropers) followed the British ones (George and Mildred) and even at the end where Threes Company morphed into Threes a Crowd, that was of British origin too (Robins Nest) Not a huge Threes Company geek but when I lived in Florida, the local station would show the Threes Company episode immediately followed by the British version of the same episode.

spartan I would like to know those offical "family approved area's". I believe all those family approved areas are for anyone that abides by the laws regardless of race, education, marital status or sexual identity.

The point is the elected officals have been elected to abide by the laws that have been passed. If the elected officals decided not to allow the parade, there would be a lawsuit because they would be breaking the law. Thus the taxpayers would have to pay for the lawsuit..... Remember years past when Humphreys didn't like the gay banners and had them removed and tried to pass resolutions to keep them from happening. The city was sued and lost. The elected officials are expected to know the laws an uphold them..... that is the oath that they pledge when they take office.

The reality is there are gay households in every sector of the city, there are gay workers in businesses throughout the city and there are gay consumers throughout the city.

I am not suggesting discrimination against the gays. I am suggesting that they have a right to claim a part of town as their own and stake a claim in the community. Chill man, I'm on your side. I believe everyone has a right to have a community to their own, especially heavily discriminated-against groups such as the gays, and other races such as Latinos who too many idiots in this city look down on. OKC is an incredibly diverse city, especially for such a conservative place.

Would the City Council approve a parade permit for a group of nudist that want to show their pride in being nudist?

My luck, it would be in January, in which case there will be more goosebumps than pride.

spartan to claim an area of town is getto-itzation by any one group.... thats why there is diversity so anyone can live anywhere. I get your overall thoughts.... and I know you do not condone discrimination of any group. And if any certain group wants to congregate in a particular area thats within their rights has long as others that chose to be in that area may also. I believe you really feel that way also. Thanks for the open discussion.

My main point is the elected officals are to enforce and abide by the laws in place. They have legal council to help with whats legal and what can or can not happen according to those laws. To vote against a law that is already in place is not being a good leader of citizenship. So I tend to agree with venture they should abstain or as some on the schoolboard have been know to do leave the room before the vote.

Nobody wants to group certain diversity groups in specialized "ghetto" areas, but it happens, and sometimes it is for the best. As a WASP (except for the Protestant part) I always feel like I get a lot out of venturing into the inner south side for some Mexican food or some Latin culture, or going out to Bobo's for some of the best fried chicken, and so on. I think we need to inject more culture into these "ghettos" and showcase the diversity that they could possibly bring to the table. The gays having their festival on 39th or wherever it is does just that I suppose.

IMO, this thread is much ado about nothing. I've already said that, while I disagree with Walters' thinking, I do think that he has a complete right to vote how he will and say what he does ... even if by his vote and thinking he marks him as an asshole. I also said that he'd be one of the last people I'd ever vote for.

So, why do I feel the need to say anything more as this diatribe goes back and forth? Not sure, but maybe "the devil made me do it." Upon that premise, I'll add a few remarks:

Walters choice of words: No need existed for him to make the comparisons that he did. As at least one here said, he could have abstained. But even if not choosing to abstain, he could have cast his vote without equating gay people to the groups that he obviously felt comfortably doing ... to him, all people in the bad guy class were people that ALL would agree were bad guys ... if he wasn't comfortable with the choices, he wouldn't have named names ...


First off, he pats himself on the back for being a born-again christian (hey, look at me, I'm special). He apparently has a need to wear his religion on his sleeve -- it may well be a requirement that born-again-christian's do that, I don't know ... maybe it has to do with evangelism, maybe not. He makes it a point to tell us, "I’m a born-again Christian and don’t believe in the homosexual lifestyle.” He gets points with some for advancing his view of both morality and Christianity, as he sees it notwithstanding that I assume that he knows that many who identify themselves as "Christian" do not agree as to his viewpoint about gays and lesbians
Second, and worse, he equates his vote as though he'd voted OK to favoring the beasts who beat up on their wives. Doubtless, he felt comfortable doing this since such such beasts do not exist within the "born-again christian" group of people
Third, he equates the vote as though he'd voted OK to favoring pedophiles (and, again, and with complete assurance, pedophiles cannot possibly exist in a born-again-christian society.

Oh, for the wisdom of Solomon. This guy would have probably have had to have an internal debate whether to decide to cut the kid in half or not. I'll keep to myself my guess on how Walters would have resolved that controversy.

Some have brought up Mayor Humphreys' position on the topic some years back. My comment: The mayor's position was wrong but good people, like I think he is, make mistakes. This was one of his.

Others have said: Ever gone to an OKC gay parade? I've not taken the time to see an entire-length parade, but I've seen nothing in the parade snippets that I've seen that offended me (but then I'm not one who is easily offended). But, even if I did, how would that matter? I'm not the judge of what's OK and what's not. Why don't we just go all out and take down this piece of art in the Music Hall's Hall of Mirrors ...

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/trolleystoday/transit_4_13_2010_07.jpg

Bottom line: If you think like this guy does, then vote him in for another term. If you don't, pay no attention to his judgmental and illogical drivel. Life goes on, either way. And life is short.

Mr. Loudenback...If gay folks can go around patting each other on the butt, why can't Mr. Walters "pat himself on the back" (as you say) for being a Christian. Professing that he is a "born-again Christian" simply says, among other things, that he lives by a set of moral principles.

Why is it that folks like yourself and so many others on this forum are so eager to speak up for "everyone" having the right to express what they believe, unless they happen to be a Christian? I don't understand that. Did you ever refuse to hire someone in your law firm just because they were a Christian?

Mr. Loudenback...If gay folks can go around patting each other on the butt, why can't Mr. Walters "pat himself on the back" (as you say) for being a Christian. Professing that he is a "born-again Christian" simply says, among other things, that he lives by a set of moral principles.
Why is it that folks like yourself and so many others on this forum are so eager to speak up for "everyone" having the right to express what they believe, unless they happen to be a Christian? I don't understand that. Did you ever refuse to hire someone in your law firm just because they were a Christian?

Everyone knows that a true Christian lives by example, not by words. If your living according to God's will and God's word, theres no reason to go around professing that your "Born Again", unless your trying to make people believe your something that your not.

Mr. Loudenback...If gay folks can go around patting each other on the butt, why can't Mr. Walters "pat himself on the back" (as you say) for being a Christian. Professing that he is a "born-again Christian" simply says, among other things, that he lives by a set of moral principles.

Wow. You really don't get it, do you? Gay people don't run around in OKC patting each other on the butt. Dudes do that in the football locker room. Also, realize that your sentence juxtaposes two things that sound ludicrous in comparison of each other and as a result your post is ludicrous.


Why is it that folks like yourself and so many others on this forum are so eager to speak up for "everyone" having the right to express what they believe, unless they happen to be a Christian? I don't understand that. Did you ever refuse to hire someone in your law firm just because they were a Christian?

Does anyone sound eager to speak up for everyone but Christians? Nobody's eager to stick up for gays, especially myself because I actually am kind of repulsed by a gay pride parade, but I do it because it is what is right. (No offense to anyone who is gay.) First of all, go back and read Doug's post, and you'll see that he prefaced it with how pointless and stupid this whole thread is. Does that sound eager to you? Also, speaking up for everyone but Christians? Sorry, hate to break it to you, but you or "your people" aren't nearly the martyrs they may think they are. A group's right to express themselves ends with their ability to limit the right of other groups to express themselves. How does this apply to Brian Walters? Well, if he was successful in single-handedly blocking the gay parade the city would have a lawsuit on their hands that they would surely lose. Get it? Of course he has a right to say gays have no rights and are equal to child molesters by virtue, but when he is actually successful in harming gays, that's when he crosses the line.

And as a last point, this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, hiding behind the right to express your opinion for something that is basically bigotry and hypocrisy. Nobody here is going to deny your God-given ability to make a moron out of yourself, but apparently you aren't stupid (but you are a bigot) because clouding the issue with YOUR rights as a Christian is a brilliant sideshow. Christians are not under attack..just because we ask that you allow others to live in peace does not make you under attack. I guess the Protestants have been so used to imposing their tyranny on everyone else that they can't accept any less.

Mr. Loudenback...If gay folks can go around patting each other on the butt, why can't Mr. Walters "pat himself on the back" (as you say) for being a Christian. Professing that he is a "born-again Christian" simply says, among other things, that he lives by a set of moral principles.

Why is it that folks like yourself and so many others on this forum are so eager to speak up for "everyone" having the right to express what they believe, unless they happen to be a Christian? I don't understand that. Did you ever refuse to hire someone in your law firm just because they were a Christian?

Perhaps, though I'm not sure, it's because -- particularly in Oklahoma -- "Christians," and I use that term loosely to describe the self-labeled adherents to a particularly narrow form of fire and brimstone evangelicalism, are wont to decree their religion the only salvation, and insist on forcing it on others constantly.

People get a little sick of it, and I belong to a Christian church myself.

My favorite is the "we're so persecuted because we're Christian" routine. It's a joke and it's nauseating.

By the way, I'm in complete favor of gay rights, including the rights for gays to marry. I see no reason why they should legally be denied what is available to heterosexuals. It's kind of bizarre it's even a debate at this point. To deny gays the right to marry is clearly discrimination. It's only a matter of time until that is the law of the land, IMO.

Mr. Loudenback...If gay folks can go around patting each other on the butt, why can't Mr. Walters "pat himself on the back" (as you say) for being a Christian. Professing that he is a "born-again Christian" simply says, among other things, that he lives by a set of moral principles.

Why is it that folks like yourself and so many others on this forum are so eager to speak up for "everyone" having the right to express what they believe, unless they happen to be a Christian? I don't understand that. Did you ever refuse to hire someone in your law firm just because they were a Christian?
Possum, perhaps you have had more and different experiences than my 67 years have given me but I cannot recall a single time that I've seen a couple of guys publicly patting themselves on the butt (with the notable exception of during football games ... hmmm). If you didn't get the drift of what I said, I am altogether for and support Mr. Walters having and exercising the right to say what he wants and to vote how he wants ... whether I like what he says or how he votes or not. But when he speaks publicly, as he did, it is altogether my right, at the same time, to be critical of what he says and how and why he says it. Free speech cuts both ways.

My experience with Christians, however, is that the best of their lot live out their principles and convictions in their lives and don't have a need to wear oral or verbal signs indicating who they are. They just do it without having the need to waive some sort of flag while doing so. For example, do you see Catholics saying, "As a Roman Catholic (and feel free to substitute Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, whatever), I'm compelled to take [this stance or another] on this particular matter [whatever the matter might be]. If you did, chances are good, I'd suspect, that you'd not find an attempted linkage to pedophiles and wife-beaters (for example) as part of the rationale which linkage is not based in religion at all but is just mired and based in stupidity.

Lots of people, most, I think, live by a set of moral principles, and that's altogether good and the way it should be, in my opinion. I doubt very seriously that the other members of council are either amoral or are sociopaths -- or would you disagree about that? Or would it have been better for those who voted "aye" on the motion in question that each person voting aye were to have identified their own moral underpinnings so that the council session could have turned into a really nifty soap opera session, well worth watching on prime time TV many times over? Gladly for Oklahoma City, that did not happen and the other council members zipped their own thoughts while they, most probably, were internally rolling their eyeballs in their sockets while enduring the moment that Walters felt the need to strut his stuff.

As for your employer-type question, I'm pretty much (2/3rds I'd say) retired at this point but when I was in the position of hiring people, I had no interest whatever in knowing or caring about their religious underpinnings which would ordinarily be completely beside the point -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Zorasterians, Buddhists, Hindus, or athests and/or agnostics would have been fine with me since, as far as I'm aware, the members of each such group has the complete ability to be honest, truthful, and trustworthy. Without looking at the law, I'm not even sure that it would be legal for me to have made such inquiries. But, then, I was never in the position of interviewing an employee prospect who felt the need to make an unsolicited announcement that he/she was a "Born Again Christian," so I can't say with certainty how I would have reacted to that. Chances are, I would be taken aback and, as a guess and most probably, I would have inquired, "John/Jill, how do you think that bears upon your job qualifications here? Why are you telling me that?" (with the possible exception of something akin to the TV show House episode when he was interviewing a buxomy young lady who felt the need to make such an unsolicited declaration while bearing her breasts at the time ... chances are, were I House, I would have skipped the questions that I just mentioned, under that circumstance). But, even though this is all speculation, I'd probably be interested in hearing speculative replies to those questions.

Where are Oklahoma's core values? | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12738/a/6555/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAzADgA)