RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man who's directly compared homosexuality to pedophilia will now lecture you on extremism » The 'why can't they take their business elsewhere?' line: Not only offensive but legally meaningless » FRC's ridiculously bunk new poll (*from partisan polling firm) » Video: 'Vice' covers the sad, dangerous, discredited world of 'conversion therapy' » Buzzfeed: Jeb Bush's nascent team is teeming with gay Republicans » FRC prays against gay acceptance to 'avoid the wrath of God' » Video: Mark Cuban supports religious biz owners that 'just say no' to serving same-sex weddings » We're not driven by animus, say groups that are known for showing animus toward gay couples » Video: Onetime LGBT community foe delivers crushing blow to 'religious freedom' (a.k.a. license to discriminate) bills » Q. How does Mark Regnerus 'prove' he's not an anti-gay activist?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/26/2014

Video: When no one's buying your 'right' to discriminate, try AFA radio

by Jeremy Hooper

Having little success with the public (including the Republican public), Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson today took his pro-discrimination views on business owners' supposed right to turn away gay couples to the uber anti-gay waters of the American Family Association. Speaking to host Tim "gay activists are a new kind of 'Gestapo'" Wildmon, Ryan attempted to "explain" to all of us why (a) people who sell cakes and flowers and assorted wedding accoutrements are casting an endorsement on the pending nuptials whenever they book a client, (b) why these wholly ancillary and in no way binding bits of wedding ephemera apparently come with some sort of special status, and (c) why gay people should just stop their whining, since they can just spend their days driving around in a fun new game where they hunt for the vendor who deems them acceptable enough for service.

Clip is cued to pertinent point (and you can stop it about two minutes after for the purposes of this post):

It's such a pretzel of twists. One, they have to pretend that discrimination in public accommodations is "religious freedom," as if that trumps fair practice. Two, they have to equate elements that are mostly featured at wedding receptions or in post-event scrapbooks with the granting (/denial) of marital rights. Three, they have to pretend that this naked act of superiority is someone an act of peace. And so on. It's just such a mess of untenability, which is why it's failing so damn hard.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails