TV Host Slams Tony Perkins: You Support Anti-LGBT Laws Because They Allow Discrimination (VIDEO)

The phrase “freedom of association” is the new, politically correct way to say “separate but equal,” and with each passing day, the Republicans and religious right do more and more to prove that. One of the men leading the charge is Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council — who was called on his lies just recently, when he set down across from Internet pioneer and TV host Fernando Espuelas.

License to discriminate

The Family Research Council is a lot like the Holy Roman Empire — much like the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor much of an empire, the Family Research Council has nothing to do with families, or research, and isn’t much of a council.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel

Tony Perkins is the head of the FRC, and he’s a dirty liar. And he finally got called on his BS while sitting across from Internet pioneer Fernando Espuelas during Espuelas’ program, Matter of Fact.

Espuelas began by noting that Perkins had supported multiple “religious freedom” laws, prompting Perkins to lie that the North Carolina law — which put the state with its idiot leadership on the receiving end of painful economic sanctions by the good people of the nation — was a “public safety bill.”

Perkins also claimed that broader laws like the one in Mississippi prevent the government from “penalizing” Christians who discriminate.

Espuelas countered 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.”

That’s true. The problem is this: the 1960s were never officially put to rest.

Perkins, as usual, began lying almost immediately:

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

Espuelas noted that was the same argument as segregation, and Perkins disagreed, because reasons:

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?”

Perkins countered that nobody “can deny that marriage is a religious ceremony” and that “you’re forcing someone to violate their beliefs.”

I can deny that marriage is a religious ceremony, and I will. Marriage is a legally binding document that awards certain rights and privileges, such as joint ownership, hospitable access, and even social status on individuals. The ceremony at the church isn’t marriage, it’s a ceremony.

Espuelas wasn’t buying Perkin’s shit, either, and fired back:

No, and it’s very clear, and the reason why you support is why? You support it because specifically these laws allow businesses to discriminate against gay people. Because you have a point of view regarding it.

Perkins was horrified that someone saw through his BS and gasped that “it allows people to live out their religious freedom.”

See, here’s the problem: “Freedom” means absolutely nothing without context. “Religious freedom” to do what? The Islamic State practices a brand of religious freedom — they are free to practice their religion completely uninhibited by law because their religion is the law.

And that’s the sort of “religious freedom” people like Perkins want. They want Islamic State-style religious freedom, and they’re using the states as a vehicle to achieve it because the federal government is normally too large for them to co-opt fully. They have more control over the states at the local level.

One thing should be clear out of all this, and it’s why I vehemently disagree with libertarianism: we need a strong, centralized federal government and crippled, hamstrung states. Why? Because nobody else is going to protect us from tyranny at the state level except a strong, centralized federal government.

Watch the video below:


Feature image via YouTube Screenshot

Terms of Service

Leave a Reply