This nonsense over "religious liberty" is having an interesting effect on Fox News, causing two of the network's personalities to engage in an ugly public twitter feud.
It stems from a column Kirsten Powers wrote earlier this week in the USAToday which showcased the fallacies of the "religious liberty" argument. Her piece elicited some vicious comments from another Fox News personality, Todd Starnes.
Powers answered back, challenging Starnes' assertion:
Starnes continued on his tirade, even making the following self-effacing comments:
But it ends when Powers zings Starnes, making note of his history for playing face and loose with the truth:
So an unintended but positive consequence of this awful "religious liberty" argument is that it allowed Powers to expose Starnes as a self-righteous bully hiding behind Biblical Scriptures.
Hat tip to Equalitymatters.org
It stems from a column Kirsten Powers wrote earlier this week in the USAToday which showcased the fallacies of the "religious liberty" argument. Her piece elicited some vicious comments from another Fox News personality, Todd Starnes.
Powers answered back, challenging Starnes' assertion:
Starnes continued on his tirade, even making the following self-effacing comments:
But it ends when Powers zings Starnes, making note of his history for playing face and loose with the truth:
So an unintended but positive consequence of this awful "religious liberty" argument is that it allowed Powers to expose Starnes as a self-righteous bully hiding behind Biblical Scriptures.
Hat tip to Equalitymatters.org
We all know that a LOT of the arguments against Black civil rights were religiously based. If the Supreme Court had allowed a religious exemption for Jim Crow laws, they'd still be in place today.
ReplyDeleteInstead, the principle is pretty well established: religious exemptions only apply to religious activities: When Jack and Sam get married, you can refuse to be our minister, but you can't refuse to be our florist.
You know, if you get called a racist often enough to need a policy about it there may be some grounds to the accusation.
ReplyDelete