http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tea-party Tea Party Group Leader: File 'Class Action Lawsuit' Against Homosexuality If you can't beat them, sue them. At least that's Tea Party Unity leader Rick Scarborough's thinking, who suggested Friday that conservative activists should take a page from campaigns against Big Tobacco and file a “class action lawsuit” against homosexuality. The far-right pastor was responding to fellow tea partier and president of Americans for Truth Peter LaBarbera, who was arguing that Fox News should tell more "stories of happy men and women who have left the homosexual lifestyle" in the same way they highlight black conservatives. "Peter, the whole issue of a class action lawsuit, you and I have talked about this a little bit," Scarborough said. "I just wonder if you’ve explored that, talked to anyone about it. Obviously, statistically now even the Centers for Disease Control verifies that homosexuality much more likely leads to AIDS than smoking leads to cancer. "And yet the entire nation has rejected smoking, billions of dollars are put into a trust fund to help cancer victims and the tobacco industry was held accountable for that," he added. "Any thoughts on that kind of an approach?" "Yeah I think that’s great," LaBarbera responded. "I would love to see it. We always wanted to see one of the kid in high school who was counseled by the official school counselor to just be gay, then he comes down with HIV. But we never really got the client for that."
I did a google search to see where the CDC came to this finding and I was not able to find it. Anyone have a link?
I would like to see these guys go to trial just to see them get laughed out of court. Anyway I thought the Tea Party was against frivolous lawsuits.
Non-Hispanic Blacks are much more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. Is it illegal to charge them higher premiums based on higher potential costs? If so, seems like they should be able to charge for sexual orientation. If not, it seems unfair they can adjust charges for age.
AIDS is not so bad: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/B10adrnAjWU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Plainly illegal, as melanin content and insulin production are not biologically correlated. It does make us human solar panels, but we don't get a break on skin cancer tonic. I think your conditionals are inverted as well.
Statistical correlation is good enough for auto insurance. Under 25 and single = u screwed. I don't understand your biologically correlated position. Age vs sickness is a statistical correlation as well. Basically it seems you have some sort of standard to determine legal vs illegal that I don't get. Please apply it to other conditions people are charged premiums for so I see a pattern.
And you're pulling undocumented scenarios out of your ass to justify your backwards racial views. Another crappy Casey racial post.
Please, somebody, ANYBODY, defend this stance. It's hilarity and the worst kind of stupidity at the same time.
You are right, insulin sensitivity(Type II)/production(Type I) has no correlation to melanin concentration. However, I believe Casey was (in part) trying to point out that genetics can predispose an individual to diabetes. Having said that, even in twin concordance studies, if one twin has T2DM the probability of the other twin having T2DM is only 3 out of 4. The bottom line is that obesity and environmental factors play a significant role that is more akin to being modified. This explains why targeting minorities for free health screening is recommended while what Casey said is ridiculous.
