Connect with us

MSNBC Becomes Platform For Anti-Gay Hate Group’s Lies (Video)

Published

on

In a stunning choice Wednesday morning, MSNBC invited a spokesperson for an anti-gay hate group to opine on the anti-gay “religious freedom” laws sweeping the nation. Watch how she lies about verifiable facts – without any response from the MSNBC anchor.

Note: Sandy Rios segment begins at about the 3:45 mark.

It’s not uncommon for Fox News to invite members of anti-gay hate groups, radical religious right pastors, preachers, and politicians onto its shows, and to offer them unfettered access to spew hate and lies. That’s just how Fox News works.

But MSNBC, after years of pushback by LGBT activists, the LGBT media, and LGBT organizations has wisely not called upon the Tony Perkins and Bryan Fischers to offer opinion or debate issues like marriage and family and discrimination with any regularity for quite some time now.

Until today.

During “News Nation” with anchor Tamron Hall, MSNBC gave a wide platform to Sandy Rios, a spokesperson for the certified anti-gay hate group American Family Association. 

Rios, who is also a Fox News contributor and hosts a radio show on the American Family Association’s Radio Network, is well know to many LGBT activists, and her animus and hate is well documented by both Right Wing Watch and GLAAD.

Via GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project, some background on Sandy Rios:

“When homosexual men get together, they don’t look for activities to enjoy common interests, they look for activities to find and expedite sex,” she once said.

Equated the love shared by two men to the “love” that kidnapper and rapist Ariel Castro had for the young women he kept captive as slaves; when confronted, doubled down

When Supreme Court overturned criminal bans on gay sex, Rios described it as a “sad moment in American history;” said it was “an immoral act” on par with “the Dred Scott decision declaring slaves two-thirds persons

MSNBC did not mention any of this, other than identifying Rios as the Director of Governmental Affairs for the American Family Association.

During the lengthy debate with Human Rights Campaign’s Jason Rahlan over Indiana and Arkansas’ anti-gay “religious freedom” legislation, Rios played extremely quick and loose with facts. In fact, she lied.

Here’s how Rios described the case of Washington state florist Baronelle Stutzman, who just lost her discrimination case over her refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

“Barronelle Stutzman, 71-years old, a grandmother, who owns a floral shop in Oregon, inherited from her mother, who has gay employees, serves gay people all the time. A gay couple came to her, asked her to do her artistry for their wedding, she said, ‘I can’t do that. I don’t agree with gay marriage.'”

“They’re trying to take Baronelle’s homes, they’re coming after her trying to take her business and by they, I mean the government in Washington State,” Rios falsely claimed.

“Because she doesn’t have a right, as a 72-year old grandmother, to say, ‘No, I love you, you’re my customer, but I don’t agree with gay marriage and I just can’t give you my artistry.”

Later, HRC’s Rahlan responded. “At the end of the day there is no religious freedom crisis in America the only crisis is a rising wave of anti-LGBT legislation.”

So Rios claimed:

“Ask Baronelle Stutzmann, who’s losing her house. Ask the young bakers who lost their business and have five little children to support and have like multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines because they wouldn’t do a cake for a gay wedding.”

So, what’s the actual truth?

Stutzman has been fined a total of $1001 and ordered to obey the law in Washington, like everyone else, and not discriminate.

But Rios claims the state is trying to punish her by confiscating her homes and business.

And no one, not Tamron Hall, not HRC’s Jason Rahlan, pushed back. She was allowed to lie.

Rios also claimed, again, falsely, that, “The same thing happened to a young couple, Aaron and Melissa Klein, who had a cake shop.”

She is of course referring to Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. After they refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, they chose to close their storefront store and do business online, presumably to avoid Oregon’s nondiscrimination laws.

“So now they’ve been fined, hundreds of thousands of dollars, they have five small children, they’ve had to give up the business – this is the part of the story that people are not hearing.”

What’s the real truth?

The case has been argued and the Kleins have been found guilty, but no fine has been set whatsoever. It could go as high as $150,000, but again, no fine or final judgment has been set.

Yet Rios claims, “they’ve been fined, hundreds of thousands of dollars,” and “they’ve had to give up the business.”

Neither HRC nor MSNBC pushed back, they just allowed false statements to be accepted as truth.

Rios also engaged in this debate with Rahlan, after he mentioned Apple CEO Tim Cook, NIKE’s CEO and President, NASCAR, the NCAA, Angie’s List, and others who all oppose Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

RIOS: “They don’t know the whole story, Jason.”

RAHLAN: “They’re pretty smart people Sandy, I think they do. They know the whole story.”

RIOS: “No I don’t think they’re pretty smart at all.”

RAHLAN: “You don’t think the CEO of Apple is smart?”

RIOS: “You know if he were smart why is he doing business with countries where they are actually executing homosexuals?”

RAHLAN: “What about the NCAA?”

RIOS: “The NCAA watches, they watch the media! They watch the ridiculous exaggeration.”

There’s a great deal more, but bottom line, MSNBC should never have hosted a spokesperson for an anti-gay hate group, should at least have been better prepared, and should have properly identified Rios as a member of a hate group.

This was, in short, journalistic malpractice and MSNBC needs to apologize and correct the record.

Some reactions via Twitter:

 

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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.

News

Republicans Are Using a Secret Super PAC to Pour $1 Million Into Democratic Primaries

Published

on

Super PACs with ties to Republicans are spending money to promote weaker, left-wing candidates in Democratic primaries, in an apparent effort to help Republicans retain control of the House, The New York Times reports.

“They’re going into Democratic primaries and literally trying to boost the most extreme candidates and oppose the Blue Dog-endorsed candidates that, if they win, are going to beat the Republicans in the general,” U.S. Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA) said in an interview with the Times. The Blue Dogs are more centrist Democrats.

One “new mystery super PAC with ties to Republicans has spent more than $1 million meddling in at least three Democratic congressional primaries to select preferred opponents,” the Times reports. That group is spending money to promote “a left-wing sex therapist in Texas who has been accused of bigotry and antisemitism by leaders in both parties.”

It is also running ads in Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania and Nebraska.

In some of these races the spending is an effort to disrupt Democratic candidates “who are part of the Democratic Party’s ‘red to blue’ program, a special designation for top recruits in key races that could determine control of the House.”

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

The Times calls these “interventions in the opposing party’s primaries,” and reports that they are “apparently to elevate Democrats viewed as weaker candidates,” suggesting that “the race for control of the House has entered an intensive new phase in which both parties are vying for every imaginable edge.”

“Some Republicans privately believe the party’s best chance to hold power this year is to cast Democrats as extremists,” the Times reports.

Another super PAC formally aligned with Republicans is promoting a progressive Democrat in California.

Maureen Galindo is running for a Democratic seat from Texas. Party leaders are backing Johnny Garcia, who has worked in the local sheriff’s office. Despite having raised less than $10,000, Galindo finished first in the primary, advancing to a May runoff.

“In a text message,” the Times reports, “Ms. Galindo suggested the money for the mailer had come from ‘a billionaire zionist who made the pac to sabotage candidates,’ using the type of language that has previously prompted charges of antisemitism, including from Senator Jacky Rosen, Democrat of Nevada, and Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who called her ‘openly bigoted.'”

Galindo told the Times, “Dems and Republicans uniting against me in the same week with the same message is evidence that theyre [sic] working together for the zionist billionaires that control our government and tax money.”

There are more races that Democratic strategists expect Republicans to meddle in, including in California, Michigan and Colorado.

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Fetterman Says He ‘Fully’ Understands Why a Pennsylvania Judge Left the Democratic Party

Published

on

A longtime Pennsylvania judge who ran as a Democrat is dropping his affiliation with the Democratic Party over what he sees as antisemitism, and U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) is weighing in.

Justice David Wecht “said in a statement he is switching his party affiliation to independent due to an ‘acquiescence to Jew-hatred’ becoming ‘disturbingly common among activists, leaders and even many elected officials in the Democratic Party,'” Politico reported.

“I can no longer abide this. So, I won’t,” said Wecht, who once served as vice chair of the state Democratic Party. “I am no longer registered within any political party.”

Judge Wecht said that antisemitism used to be found more often on the far right, but since the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shooting in 2018, he said, “that same hatred has grown on the left.”

“Increasingly, it has moved from the fringe to the mainstream. It is the duty of all good people to fight this virus, and to do so before it is too late,” he said.

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

Lamenting that the Democratic Party has “changed,” Wecht said that “hateful anti-Jewish invective and actions are minimized, ignored, and even coddled.”

Senator Fetterman, whose own intention to stay affiliated with the Democratic Party has been questioned, knows Judge Wecht, according to Fox News.

“I know David and his legendary father, Cyril,” Fetterman wrote in a post on X. “As I’ve affirmed, I’m not changing my party — but I fully understand David’s personal choice.”

Fetterman also appeared to agree with Wecht, saying that the “Democratic Party must confront its own rising antisemitism problem.”

Pittsburgh’s NPR station WESA reports that Fetterman, “like Wecht a Pennsylvania Democrat, has also criticized the party, particularly in recent days as Democrats in Maine seem all but certain to nominate Graham Platner, who had a Nazi tattoo, as their candidate to challenge Republican Susan Collins for her Senate seat.”

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

America’s ‘Winner-Take-Everything’ War Has Already Begun: Columnist

Published

on

Republican efforts to wipe Democrats off the face of their states’ congressional maps — the redistricting wars — are not the end of a “winner-take-everything” political “cold civil war,” but merely the beginning, argues Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark.

President Donald Trump started the redistricting war when he demanded Texas redistrict mid-decade to gain five Republican seats in the House of Representatives. GOP-led states have followed suit, but in some, like America just saw in Louisiana, Republicans are now pushing to send only Republicans to the House. They are redrawing their maps to get rid of districts that voted for Democrats.

Pointing to journalists and analysts, Last argues that that will become a problem some day for Republican states that have no Democratic members of Congress. Because one day there will be a Democrat in the White House, and it will be disadvantageous for there to be no Democrats for those red states to help get their voice out to the new administration.

Last also notes that in this “winner-take-everything” political world that America may be entering, what President Joe Biden did for red states proved to be unhelpful for Democrats, and helped voters push him out.

READ MORE: Republicans Moving to Give Trump Something He’s Wanted Since 2019

“Joe Biden was, famously, a president for all of America,” Last writes. “He pumped hundreds of billions of dollars in federal credits and investments into red states. Biden didn’t just give red states their fair share—he gave them much more.”

Biden’s theory, Last argues, was that “the way to leach the poison of Trumpism out of America was to forgive Republicans and shower them with goodies to prove that he was on their side, too.”

“The notion was that, in exchange, they would reward him politically, or at least be less hostile in their overall political outlook.”

That did not work.

“Instead of conveying to Republicans that the cycle of recriminations could be broken, Biden inadvertently conveyed a different message: That Democrats did not believe in recriminations,” he writes. In other words, the message was that for all of the GOP’s bad faith actions, there would be no political price to pay.

“What message would it send to Republicans if, in 2029, President Raphael Warnock passed an infrastructure package that, just to pick an example, shoveled money for battery factories into Tennessee, after Tennessee gerrymandered its lone Democratic district out of existence?” he posits.

“Democratic deterrence didn’t work,” Last writes.

He points to Democratic states that moved to redistrict after Texas, and notes that the two sides were coming up about even.

But then, Florida moved to redistrict, with Republican Governor Ron DeSantis “doing an end run around the law” to get more GOP seats.

And then, the Supreme Court “rushed to insert itself into the fight by pushing out the Callais decision in time for Southern states to get rid of a bunch of black congressional districts.”

At this point, for Democrats to take back majority control of the House, they will need to “win the national popular vote by more than 4 percentage points.”

This status quo, says Last, is “not sustainable.”

READ MORE: ‘Bad All Around’: Republicans Privately Fear Backing Trump Request Sends Tone-Deaf Message

 

Image: Public Domain by Architect of the Capitol via Flickr

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.