Connect with us

Watch: CNN Anchor Explains To Anti-Gay Group That Same-Sex Marriage Is Not A KKK Rally

Published

on

var addthis_config = {“data_track_addressbar”:true};

Speaking about Arizona‘s wide-sweeping anti-gay bill, SB 1062, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo this morning was forced to explain to a representative of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, and formerly the Alliance Defense Fund) that a same-sex wedding is not the same as a KKK rally, and asking a photographer to take photos of one is not the same as asking a photographer to take photos of the other.

ADF attorney Kellie Fiedorek told Cuomo there’s “a basic difference between denying someone a cup of coffee or a piece of pizza or selling someone a pencil versus forcing someone to use their creative ability to create a message to support an event, to support an idea that goes against their beliefs.”

I mean, think about, for example, we would not force a Muslim to participate in a Koran-burning ceremony. We wouldn’t ask a black photographer and force them to go take a picture of KKK event. This is America and America we should be able to live freely and not be forced to endorse ideas.

Cuomo couldn’t hold back any longer. “Counselor, tell me that you’re not analogizing burning a Koran or the KKK with gay marriage? Do you really see those things as the same thing?”

Fiedorek added that “bill simply protects those freedoms and allows people to live according to their faith without the government coming in and saying what you can and cannot believe.”

Sure. So, if you believe that Black people, women, Muslims, gay people, or yes, Catholics or Christians are, hmm, shall we quote Ted Nugent and say, “sub-human mongrels,” just as an example, the bill — if Gov. Jan Brewer signs it — says not only are you allowed to believe that, but you’re legally allowed to act on those beliefs by refusing to work with, serve, or do business with anyone who is Black, a woman, a Muslim, gay, Catholic, or Christian.

That’s just merely “protecting freedom!”

Cuomo wasn’t letting Fiedorek’s claims stand.

“It allows people to not do business with gays is what it allows,” he told her. “Your organization has a history of trying to hedge the ability to deal with gay marriage and gay rights in the country. All somebody has to do is Google your organization. So let’s just be open and honest about it. Why is dealing with gays or gay marriage out to a substantial burden of someone’s religion? Whose religion does that burden?”

And Fiedorek also claimed this:

“Under this bill that no one would be able to deny anyone services. They couldn’t say no to a cup of coffee.”

She also claimed these following gems — which, having read the bill, I find to be false:

“This law is about protecting religious freedom and protecting the dignity of every single person.”

“It will not deny anyone any service. No one will be kicked out of a restaurant or denied a cup of coffee or piece of pizza.”

“What this bill is advocating for is basic freedom, ensuring that everyone is respected and that the government is not allowed to force or to coerce or compel anyone to violate their beliefs or to go against their conscience. This is basically to keep the government from discriminating against people of faith.”

Fiedorek, for the record, is not just a hired mouthpiece, but a bad one at that.

In 2011, speaking as a staff attorney for the anti-abortion organization Americans United for Life (AUL), said, “I think it’s [curtailing abortion rights] completely in line with the desire to focus on jobs, because we are in a financial crisis, so this ensures that federal taxpayer funds are going to things that are important to the American people and not to something like abortion.”

Cue the right wing media’s cries of “doesn’t get how religious freedom works“…

//www.youtube.com/embed/aONlDsp5Rkg

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

BREAKING NEWS

Watch: Bill Barr Has Talked to Jan. 6 Committee Says Chairman

Published

on

Bill Barr, the former Attorney General who served as then-President Donald Trump’s top protector, has spoken with the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.

Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS), asked by CBS News about a bombshell draft executive order directing the Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines after Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, said: “We’ve had conversations with the former attorney general already. We have talked to Department of Defense individuals.”

“We are concerned that our military was part of this big lie on promoting that the election was false,” Thompson said Sunday morning on “Face the Nation.”

“So, if you are using the military to potentially seize voting machines, even though it’s a discussion, the public needs to know. We’ve never had that before.”

The draft memo was never formalized or enacted, and it is unknown who wrote it, but it was part of a massive, hard-fought document collection given to the Jan. 6 Committee by the National Archives after the Supreme Court refused to block its release. Trump tried for months to keep his official White House records from being released.

Watch:

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Instructed Michael Cohen to Make Sure Don Jr. Went to Jail Instead of Ivanka

Published

on

According to a report from Business Insider, Michael Cohen admitted on Saturday that Donald Trump instructed him in 2012 to make sure that Don Trump Jr. be the one to take the fall instead of Ivanka Trump during an investigation by Manhattan’s district attorney into lying about property sales.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Alex Witt, Cohen recalled that the former president was concerned about Ivanka’s well-being if she was sentenced to jail and that Don Jr. would handle it better.

According to the report, Cohen told the MSNBC host, “You may recall that there was the district attorney’s case here for Trump Soho where it was either Don or Ivanka was in very big trouble as a result of lying about the number of units that had been sold.”

RELATED: ’She took that West Wing office!’: Ivanka Trump blasted for trying to ‘blow off’ Jan. 6 probe

“And Donald said it to me – I mean I wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t said directly to me – he goes ‘if one or the other has to go to prison, make sure that it’s Don because Don would be able to handle it, ” he continued.

Cohen later said that he doesn’t expect Ivanka to willingly appear before the House committee investigating the Jan 6th insurrection and claimed the first daughter would likely plead the 5th before explaining, “Ivanka is only interested in Ivanka.”

You can read more here.

Image by Walt Disney Television/ABC/Ida Mae Astute via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

CRIME

Trumps Could ‘Turn on One Another’ as Investigations ‘Go Up the Food Chain’: MSNBC Analyst

Published

on

Former president Donald Trump and his family are facing “existential” threats from ongoing criminal investigations in New York and Georgia, according to MSNBC political analyst and Trump biographer Tim O’Brien.

“I think you’re going to start to see this vice squeeze in,” O’Brien said Saturday. “The Trumps will happily throw underlings under the bus as this gets hotter. I think the question is whether or not the family members will turn on one another as it goes up the food chain.”

“The Manhattan DA’s case has existential consequences to it,” O’Brien added. “Donald Trump and perhaps his children could end up in orange jumpsuits if that case goes the full route. That’s not going to be the case with (New York AG) Letitia James’ prosecution, that’s a civil case. I also think the Georgia case has an existential threat. Donald Trump acting like a 19th-century ward heeler, called up the secretary of state and said find me some votes, and there’s proof of that, there’s evidence.”

Watch the full interview below.

 

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.