It doesn’t sound like RT was blaming the administration, WeirdDave. I imagine he was responding to CBS’s statement from here:
Regardless of what RT meant, I agree that the blame for this stance falls solely on CBS.
Is sexual orientation a “suspect class” for purposes of the law?
What standard of review should be used here?
By the way – what law makes advertising space a public accomodation? Is it statutory or case law?
He never said, or even suggested, that there was any Administration involvement.
What he said quite clearly is that he believes that these media outlets are unwilling to run controversial ads that oppose Administration policy.
Two quite different things.
I might be wrong, but i seem to remember a time, in the dim distant history of this message board, when you were actually concerned about helping people come to new understandings, and when you might actually have pointed out to wiggumpuppy if/where his/her analysis was flawed.
Of late, however, you seem concerned with nothing but demonstrating your own sense of superiority and rectitude, and have turned into a self-righteous jackass. Doesn’t make you any less intelligent or informed, just less interesting and appealing.
I don’t think it is as simple as no, and rational basis any more. After Romer either homosexuals are being given at least a certain degree of heightened scrutiny or the rational basis test has been altered.
What I am more interested in is why people might think that homosexuals as a class don’t pass the necessary tests to receive at a minimum intermediate scrutiny.
not currently, no, and I said as much in a previous post to which you might want to refer. if indeed sexual orientation were a suspect classification the standard of review would be “strict scrutiny” but as it is not “rational basis” is the standard. the case law is voluminous on what standard applies when - I’m sure you already knew that - but your inquiry would have to concern state action for an equal protection analysis to be relevant, would it not? I was, for the purposes of demonstrating how someone might see this as an erosion of freedom, suggesting that the proscription contained in he Civil Rights Acts, enacted under the Commerce Clause, might/should well indeed be extended to cover sexual orientation . . . is my con law exam over?
and I am aware of no law that makes ad time on a tv network a public accomodation. I was making an analogy / hinting that an extension or modification of existing law could treat it as such . . . sheesh . . . no curtousy for the new guy. 
thx . . .
CBS and NBC found another ingenious way to roll over to the FOX family.
Only if FOX gets a gay show, they can corner yet another market.
I was raised CofC. 18 years of Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night. That’s why I’m an atheist. I’ll tell you one thing: the Church of Christ will never, ever, ever in a hundred million years accept homosexuality. Not even if the Lord Jesus personally came down to each and every congregation and said “Hey, lighten up! It’s OK to be gay!”
I’ve always wonderd if Jesus did what vibrotronica, how many people would choose hatin’ queers over bein’ Christian.
they’d probably just accuse him of being a false prophet and kill him
Yeah, but they picked it up before the election. Haven’t you been paying attention to GD for the last month? We all have to start paying homage to red state core American values now. And nothing is more red state than destroying peoples’ lives for being different than us.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
huff huff
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
phew
No, seriously, I didn’t realize they’d invented cryogenics in the BC era. What’s the trick, because I’d really love to freeze myself until someone devises a way for lazy gluttons to look like Brad Pitt?
Yeah, but what would a debate thread be without Weirddave dropping in out of nowhere just to twist somebody’s words? We’re talking tradition here! 
I don’t know what’s sadder,
(a) that CBS and NBC find “controversy” in a commercial that includes the idea, “We treat homosexuals as kindly as we treat everyone else,”
or
(b) that there are actual folks on this here message board defending the practice.
I mean, what’s next, any commercial that says “Happy Holidays” must include a footnote that reads “(Unless you’re gay, then we’re not sure if you should be happy or not)”? 
“Let’s make a law that gay people get to have birthday parties, but don’t get as much cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.” - Bill Maher
they don’t want to air “advocacy” ads . . . i am guessing that they believe this ad advocates one church to the exclusion of ohers because the advocated church has an open-door policy. this makes me wonder, aren’t all ads advocacy ads? I mean, isn’t that the point of advertising: coke is better than pepsi, chick-fil-a is better than mcdonalds, and such and such . . . given softs drinks and fast food are not as hot button as a religion, but the political ads run earlier this year certainly were
Kimmy, Kimmy, Kimmy…you live in a sad, sad world. Don’t you even read posts anymore, or does your knee just automatically jerk when you see my name? Would you care to elaborate as to how exactly my question seeking clarification as to the meaning of your post could possibly be construed as “twisting somebody’s words”? ( A question you neglected to answer, I notice, choosing instead to come in here and take an unwarranted shot at me. Yet again. )
Two posters have already done so before I had the opportunity. Can’t see why anybody’s third attempt would succeed in bringing you any illumination after Strainger’s and mhendo’s succinct explanations failed to suffice.