Sunday, April 17, 2016

Interviewer nails Tony Perkins on 'religious liberty' lies & basic homophobia

NC Gov. Pat McCrory wasn't the only one over the weekend tripping over himself in a sad attempt to defend anti-lgbt discrimination. Anti-lgbt hate group head Tony Perkins (of the Family Research Council) found himself attempting to defend Mississippi's law which allows businesses to deny services to lgbts. Although he tried to make it seem that it "merely" protects those who do not agree with gay marriage equality, the person interviewing him, Fernando Espuelas, wasn't letting him get away with that subterfuge. Espuelas allows Perkins to make his case and then points out the fallacies. Most importantly, Espeulas demonstrates that there is nothing wrong with an interviewer calling out a guest's homophobia instead of creeping around it:

 From Crooks and Liars

Internet pioneer and television host Fernando Espuelas called out Family Research Council President Tony Perkins over the weekend for supporting anti-LGBT laws throughout the U.S. "specifically" for the purpose of discriminating against minority groups.
On his Matter of Fact talk show, Espuelas noted that Perkins had supported multiple co-called "religious freedom" laws in the past and was currently backing a North Carolina law limiting the bathroom rights of transgender people.

Perkins argued that the North Carolina law was a "public safety bill," and that broader laws in states like Mississippi prevented the government from "penalizing" Christians for refusing to serve LGBT people.
Espuelas, however, pointed out that "the idea that someone who has a business license can then discriminate against one group or another is something that was put to rest in the 1960s."

"We're talking about forcing someone to take their creative ability, their talent and force them," Perkins insisted. "This is almost forced servitude, saying that you have to be a part of this or the state is going to punish you."

"That's essentially the same argument as segregation," Espuelas stated.

Perkins disagreed: 'We're talking about marriage. That is a sacred institution. Just three years ago the president had the same view."

"But he didn't have the view that people should be discriminated against," Espuelas said. "How is it not discrimination if you pick one group, a specific group of people and have different rights for them? How is that not discrimination?"


Brad said...

Every time Perky and his ilk try to argue their phony religious liberty argument, I wish interviewers would ask, "Then you would support a christian photographer/baker/whatever in refusing to provide services for a jewish wedding? After all, it's not a christian ceremony, it violates the beliefs of of the christian service provider in giving services to those who do not accept christ as their lord and savior? Isn't that also a sin that the Christian service providers are 'participating' in and lending their support to? How about people like Donald Trump who have been married and divorced multiple times? Isn't that too a problem with biblical scripture? How about if the service provider finds out that a couple have been living together in sin prior to their marriage?"

Alas they never do ask the really pointed questions.

Anonymous said...

If we're going to allow cup cake makers and photographers to discriminate against gay people, what about others who want to discriminate? What if a doctor has a "religious belief" against marriage equality? Why can't he refuse to treat a married gay patient? Or their children? Why is his conscience being violated by the state? This is the problem with these laws--where do they stop? Remember the laws in MS and NC are only first steps by the radical anti-gay lobby to use "religious beliefs" to cleanse America of gay people.

Anonymous said...

They -are- letting doctors and the like discriminate. There was a couple whose pediatrician turned them down after praying about whether or not she should be their doctor. Apparently 'God' told her no. She didn't even -tell- them, just sent another doctor in at their appointment to tell them.

These are the kinds of things the religious liberty bills would be doing.