Crossfire | Weeknights @ 6:30 pm ET on CNN

Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

February 25th, 2014
09:22 PM ET

LZ to Cuccinelli: You're probably a homophobe

Crossfire hosts Van Jones & Newt Gingrich battle over the controversial Arizona "religious freedom" bill with Ken Cuccinelli and LZ Granderson.

Cuccnelli would sign Arizona bill
Van Jones asks Ken Cuccinelli if he would sign the controversial Arizona law.

Posted by
Filed under: Debates • Gay rights • Ken Cuccinelli • LZ Granderson • Newt Gingrich • Van Jones
soundoff (55 Responses)
  1. Jimmy

    Thank you LZ for showing us what intolerance is. Two wrongs don’t make it right. It would also be kind of you not to generalize religion consistently with Christians, there are other religions for you to resent. This is not the first time a conversation about religion became a backdrop for your rant about the bible, so you obviously enjoy your freedom of religion but have no regard for others.

    February 28, 2014 at 3:28 pm | Reply
  2. Ann brown

    I would sit at home an cry , nobody likes me , omg not ,Simple , I'd go else were for my wedding an not take them to court because they disagree with my views or for not serviceing my wedding , all America's have that right , the PC police need to back off. An people need to stop being cry babies. Woes is me , poor me cry mr a river. Again I am NOT talking about serving gays bread or milk ex. I am only talking wedding , regardless of what the bill says an maybe it could of been written better, what I am saying people would not even think of passing any kind of bills if each others side just respected the marriage issue , that is the issue. Ps if u think those gays did not knowingly target those Christian business owners to take them to court ur living in space , each side of this issue has those with a deliberate agenda knowing full well what there doing ,ps nobody has said what if the Muslims asked for a bill (not just a op out wedging participations bill) but a full no bread no milk no service , the leftist would be so silent , they don't play PC police with the Muslims. People need to get thicker skins.

    February 27, 2014 at 4:06 pm | Reply
  3. Name*ann brown

    YOu all have this wrong this is not about religious people not wanting to sell a loaf of bread to gay people "there is no issue with that" this is about gay people targeting religious people "one was a little old menite woman" to participate in so called same sex marriage, photographers, bakers who may nicely decline a same sex marriage union/event but the gay people not being TOLERENT of others beliefes they get mad and sue/ and take them to court. If people of faith did not have to worry about being taken to court or foreced by the Government then this would not be a issue. These gay bullies hate BIBLE beliving Christians "had to say bible because there are alot people who say they are Christian but don't follow the bible" this is not like the 60s african american issues "and those that compare the two should be ashamed of themselves.) First off unless you come in and say I need this protect for a gay wedding I have no idea of what you need the cake for or what you do at home, and I really don't need to know what your personal sex life at home is. Second why would anybody for what ever reason want a photographer that says this is against my relgion, but still want them to take part at their cerimony or take them to court if they don't believe the way you do. This whole issue would go away if the gay lobby would just promise not to force their marriage on religious peope who don't believe in it. Again this not about people not wanting to sell bread or milk ex. to gay people, its all about the wedding.

    February 26, 2014 at 7:46 pm | Reply
    • sweetwater36

      Hi my name is Brian I am a 17 year old Junior in high school. I am a very forward thinking individual, am well educated and would like to point out a couple flaws in your argument.

      1. This bill is about the religious right to discriminate against any individual regardless... this being said I do not see how "this is about gay people targeting religious people..." In fact it is about religious people targeting and discriminating against anyone to fit their personal religious beliefs. So to be frank it would be the religious people doing the targeting not the Homosexual Community.

      2. In your comment you talk about the Homosexual Community being tolerant of others religious beliefs, this is all well and good however you are being quite hypocritical in using the word tolorence seeing as you yourself don't seem to be very tolerant of other people beliefs in their lifestyle choices. You also talk about the "Gay bullies" hating the bible, I happen to personally know several homosexual couples both male and female who attend church every sunday... I do not believe the Homosexual Community holds any malice towards anyones religious beliefs until it intercedes with their lifestyle choices as this bill could have done.

      3. I do not believe the Homosexual Community is trying to force their marriages on anyone, I agree it would be silly to have someone who is against homosexuality taking photos at homosexual wedding and yes, in such an instance, they should take their business elsewhere. However it does seem to be unfair to discriminate against an individual based on their personal beliefs...

      4. From what I understand about the bill this is not about the wedding... this is about basic rights entitled to every american, we are all equal under the federal constitution so why not grant the same rights to your fellow americans as you would your own family.

      I pose only one question for you that I hope you will ponder on long and hard..... What if a business were to discriminate against you because you were Christian? How do you think it would feel to be discriminated against for what you believe in and how you choose to live your life on a daily basis.

      I would love a response - Discussions are always welcome

      February 27, 2014 at 3:08 am | Reply
      • Brian

        Brian, you're a smart man.

        February 27, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
      • southerngent

        You need more education as well as life experiences!
        Point 1. Read the bill. Its was designed to align the laws of Arizona with federal law.
        Point 2. Bs, public opinion has been changing to accept g/l life choices. This whole thing is a direct assault on Christian values and religious freedom!
        Point 3. Bs, traditional marriage has been under attack for a while now, this was a slap in the face of religious freedom!
        Point 4. Do you agree with religious freedom or is your opinion the only choice other individuals are allowed?

        Christians are being attacked on a daily basis, along with religious freedom! Here is only one example: Although Christmas is a Christian celebration many retail employees are not allowed to acknowledge a customer with Merry Christmas!
        So, to your self-righteous crap against religious freedom. Be careful what you wish for you just may get it! Loss of individual freedom.

        February 27, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
      • Sweetwater36

        While yes, I am young, I do not believe that age determines your mental capacity to understand the issues and controversies our country is facing today. This being said I understand how it may be hard for someone who is much older to comprehend that someone who may seem like a child can understand in issue at the same level as yourself. So without ranting further....

        1) I have read the bill (yes the actual bill that was proposed to the Arizona state senate... the link is – http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf – if you would like to read it yourself) however I do not see how what I said differs from anything said in the bill itself. As I see it we are arguing over the clause in the bill that states... "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
        RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."....that is copied and pasted directly from the bill.... So to simplify the words of the bill... it is a persons right to discriminate against any other person because of your religious beliefs, the issue with this is that it would allow people of certain religions to discriminate against others even though it would conflict with the generally excepted view of the basic rights given to every man, woman, and child in respect to tolerance of personal beliefs....

        2) Yes public opinion has been shifting toward acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyle choices, however I do not understand how what I said is bull shit. It is by definition hypocritical (here's the definition of hypocritical from dictionary.com – hypocritical[ hip-uh-krit-i-kuhl ]
        adjective
        1. of the nature of hypocrisy, or pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess: The parent who has a “do what I say and not what I do” attitude can appear hypocritical to a child.
        2. possessing the characteristics of hypocrisy: Isn't a politician hypocritical for talking about human dignity while voting against reasonable social programs?" -) to ask for religious tolerance (religion is a lifestyle choice) yet not practice tolerance of other peoples lifestyle choices. I also do not see how this is an attack on Christian values; while yes manny practicing Christians do not believe in gay rights, opposing a bill that would limit their rights is not attacking Christianity it is practicing tolerance of other lifestyle choices. In no way am I saying that people of religion are not entitled to their beliefs I am simply saying that the argument is hypocritical.

        3) I do not understand how practicing religious and social tolerance is bullshit, Also I would love to have a documented instance of traditional marriage being attacked presented to me for I have not come across or heard of any instance that would be considered an attack on traditional marriage - please provide evidence to support your claim.

        4) I absolutely agree with religious freedom, I myself to not associate with any religion despite being raised under Judaic values however in my opinion all people should be able to practice the religion of their choice and therefor the lifestyle they choose. Opinions are subject to an individuals own feelings. While you may not agree with my own opinions I am trying to point out the hypocrisy behind your argument against gay rights in relation to tolerance of belief.

        5) this pertains to your last statement – the reason retail employees are constrained from acknowledging a customer with "Merry Christmas" is because when a customer enters a store the employees do not have to right to automatically assume that persons religion, so to avoid causing offense to someone who may not want to be greeted in such a way due to their religious choices businesses take the precaution of not allowing employees to say "Merry Christmas" and instead tell them to greet customers with "happy holidays". This is not an attack on Christianity it is simply a business tactic to avoid disgruntlement within their customer base and show religious tolerance toward the millions of Americans who are not Christian.

        Also none of my comments by definition are self-righteous ( here is the definition also from dictionary.com – self-righteous [ self-rahy-chuhs, self- ]
        adjective
        1. confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others. – ) I am not practicing intolerance of others opinions simply trying to educate people on how and why their arguments are hypocritical while my opinions are bias towards one side I am tolerant of all sides of the argument. What I wish for is equality through out the American population in the respect of life choices and practices not discrimination based on intolerance of beliefs.

        Thank you for your time and I look forward to a response.

        P.S. Loss of individual freedom is the center of the homosexual argument, the homosexual community is fighting for the rights of individual freedom in respect of their beliefs which are different than yours may be.

        February 28, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
      • southerngent

        Still waiting for this great discussion you were demanding.

        February 28, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
      • countingdown

        "So to simplify the words of the bill... it is a persons right to discriminate against any other person because of your religious beliefs, the issue with this is that it would allow people of certain religions to discriminate against others even though it would conflict with the generally excepted view of the basic rights given to every man, woman, and child in respect to tolerance of personal beliefs...."

        Your simplifying statement is an opinion only! Law is law period.

        Yes public opinion has been shifting toward acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyle choices, however I do not understand how what I said is bull shit. It is by definition hypocritical (here's the definition of hypocritical from dictionary.com – hypocritical[ hip-uh-krit-i-kuhl ]
        Like I said " This whole thing is a direct assault on Christian values and religious freedom!"

        I also do not see how this is an attack on Christian values; while yes manny practicing Christians do not believe in gay rights, opposing a bill that would limit their rights is not attacking Christianity it is practicing tolerance of other lifestyle choices. In no way am I saying that people of religion are not entitled to their beliefs I am simply saying that the argument is hypocritical.
        I do not see then write yes many! Why not start your own sect of religion rather than attack someone else!

        P.S. Loss of individual freedom is the center of the homosexual argument, the homosexual community is fighting for the rights of individual freedom in respect of their beliefs which are different than yours may be.
        Bs, you had the freedom to your life style then demand that I except it! I don't agree with bestility, but according to you if someone else does I must except it and my religious freedom doesn't matter!

        Fk this shit you made your choice,. I believe your choice goes against God and nature! Enjoy your miserable life stay out of my religion!

        February 28, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
      • countingdown

        I must write to apologize to you. I let my stupidity get in the way of logic, actually you are correct in your statements. The political rhetoric of late has touched a nerve with me and I again apologize.

        February 28, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
    • baloney!

      That's the biggest pile of baloney I've heard in a long time.

      February 27, 2014 at 1:30 pm | Reply
      • southerngent

        However, you weren't able to counter!

        February 28, 2014 at 10:36 am |
    • Michael

      Get real about the cakes and the "poor little bakers".

      Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon recently lost their case for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, and Fox and other Jesus Jihad news outlets sent up their usual cry of "oppression". But the articles in those sources never mentioned that reporters from Willamette Week called this "Christian" bakery, and the bakery agreed to make cakes for all of their requests: an "Out of Wedlock Baby Shower", a "Divorce Party", a "Stem-Cell Research Party", and my absolute favorite, a "Pagan Solstice Party" with a PENTAGRAM on the cake. The bakery agreed to do them all.

      Here in the South, we all "know" the Civil War was about states' rights, not slavery–except that only one states' right was ever a problem. Wake up and get out of the denial. There was only one problem then, and there's only one religious "belief" now that these people care about, and it's discriminating against gay people.

      February 28, 2014 at 2:13 pm | Reply
    • Sweetwater36

      I guess all I have to say is... "However, you weren't able to counter!"

      February 28, 2014 at 9:01 pm | Reply
    • Sweetwater36

      I guess all I have to say is… “However, you weren’t able to counter!”

      February 28, 2014 at 11:00 pm | Reply
      • southerngent

        Just read an interesting article and would like you take on it. A lady is a animal rights advocate and is a very accomplished baker who enjoys making cakes for relatives weddings, birthdays, ext. A close relative is getting married. The couple is apparently avid hunters. Not only does she not wish to make the cake but also doesn't want to attend the wedding. True story in a question to Dear Abby. Apply her scenario to a person who makes cakes for the public for money. Does she have the right to refuse her services to this couple?

        March 2, 2014 at 11:15 am |
      • sweetwater36

        The argument that has occurred over the past several weeks through out the United States regarding the Arizona law is an argument of wether or not your RELIGIOUS beliefs are a standard on which to discriminate against someone who is entitled to the civil liberties granted to every human living within our great country.

        This issue does not pertain to RELIGION therefor it is textually invalid in an argument pertaining to the Arizona Bill SB1062....

        However....

        It is a persons CHOICE to hunt, and it is a persons CHOICE to advocate for animal rights...
        A person does not choose who they are attracted to or what their sexual orientation is... that is a matter of the chemistry of the brain, someone should not be able to discriminate against someone else for what they can not biologically help. However I can not say that someone should be able to discriminate against someone else for their choices, you run into a wall when you reach the matter of religion... which is a choice. So things like this have to be looked at as a case by case basis.

        If brought to court the most probable outcome would be that the case is dismissed and the baker would be then forced to make the cake with full compensation from the opposing party (meaning they would still have to pay for the cake). This is because as a business it is not their place to discriminate against someone who does not share their same values, hence why a Christian could go to a private Jewish day school and the school could not turn the christian child away just because of the difference in their values.. or visa versa ... A more extreme example of this is if a printing company were to refuse to make posters for the KKK, if brought to court the same outcome, by law, would occur because it is not the businesses right to discriminate against others beliefs. This may seem unethical to many people however by law it is the same circumstance, discrimination of someone based on your personal beliefs.

        It is all subject to opinion on a case to case basis however there is a clear difference between what someone can and can not change about themselves.

        March 3, 2014 at 3:47 am |
      • southerngent

        It is a persons CHOICE to hunt, and it is a persons CHOICEto advocate for animal rights...
        The difference here is individual freedom to provide service as opposed to religious freedom to service!

        A person does not choose who they are attracted to or what their sexual orientation is... that is a matter of the chemistry of the brain, someone should not be able to discriminate against someone else for what they can not biologically help. However I can not say that someone should be able to discriminate against someone else for their choices, you run into a wall when you reach the matter of religion... which is a choice. So things like this have to be looked at as a case by case basis.

        I understand the g/l use of this however,until a definitive genetic marker is found, this is an invalid argument

        If brought to court the most probable outcome would be that the case is dismissed and the baker would be then forced to make the cake with full compensation from the opposing party (meaning they would still have to pay for the cake).

        If dismissed by court, no legal action can be enforced on either party.

        In conclusion, meaning my last reply, you are very well versed in defending the gay and lesbian life style Most, if not all, religions of long standing accept the male / female union as a natural order of life. Until that definitive genetic marker is found I do not believe nor agree that same sex relationships should trump religious freedom, otherwise, individuals who believe in other forms of sexual could make the same claim. All I posted on this article is an opinion only in defense of religious freedom and was not meant to be disrespectful to you or anyone else personally.

        March 3, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
      • southerngent

        Corrections, I don't like android autocorrect!
        "as opposed to religious freedom to service!"
        Should read, as opposed to religious freedom to provide service!

        "individuals who believe in other forms of sexual could make the same claim."
        Should read, individuals who believe in other forms of sexual behaviors could make the same claim.

        March 4, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
  4. QueeRevolutionary

    How are S.E. Cupp compare gay married couples denied service with Nazis when Nazis murdered gay Germans you ChristoNazi gay bashing Jew bashing shiksa. And moderator if you are going to let all this gay bashing garbage here you BETTER not censor me. It's bad enough that CNN is pimping for gay bashing Nazi Peter Sprigg and Cucinelli who will use this gay bashing bully pulpit to beg for more gay bashing blood money to launder but YOU BETTER NOT CENSOR ME

    February 26, 2014 at 7:24 pm | Reply
    • southerngent

      Perfect example of This Is Your Brain on !

      February 28, 2014 at 10:16 am | Reply
  5. GR Downtown

    LZ's saying that Cuccinelli is PROBABLY a homophobe is like saying that Warren Buffet is PROBABLY a wealthy man. Mr. Cuccinelli is s man who used his political office to ram his right-ring views down the throat's of Virginians. If you have to have a section of your own campaign website to explain your views on "sodomy" then you are living in the 1930's. The Commonwealth spoke loudly when they rejected his brand of hate. I not doubt that Cuccinelli would sign the Arizona law. He would also PROBABLY sign one that the President of Uganda just did persecuting LGBT people.

    February 26, 2014 at 6:31 pm | Reply
  6. Sean

    And this is why I'm happy I don't live in the US. There are SO MANY other things to be concerned with.

    February 26, 2014 at 5:05 pm | Reply
    • Maunalani

      Exactly right. America is consumed by it addiction to homosexuality. The rest of the world is just shaking their heads, although only a few countries like Russia are taking action to condemn the American promotion of sexual immorality and trying to protect their people from being infected.

      February 26, 2014 at 7:23 pm | Reply
  7. Carla

    The only difference between the right wing of the Republican Party and the Taliban is the right wing hasn't started pulling the trigger. They are close! The last time I looked at the Constitution, we had rights! Not anymore unless you believe their way.

    February 26, 2014 at 2:09 pm | Reply
    • kurt

      I do find it odd that the right is so fearful of Islamic Law creeping into our country but so supportive of using the bible as a basis for their politics.

      To those of us who aren't Christians (and to many who are Christians as well)... they're pretty much the same thing. I don't want the old testament determining the laws of our country any more then I want the Quran doing so.

      Religious hardliners controlling the laws of a nation is a bad situation... be they militant islamists or evangelical conservatives.

      February 26, 2014 at 4:42 pm | Reply
    • Dh

      They are pulling the trigger in Florida.

      February 26, 2014 at 10:51 pm | Reply
  8. Reggie53

    What is happening here....are our black men becoming pansies now? So many of them are turning to the gay lifestyle......I wonder why??????

    February 26, 2014 at 1:30 pm | Reply
    • Middle Man

      I bet you wonder about a lot of things because based on your comments you surely don't know anything.

      February 26, 2014 at 5:10 pm | Reply
    • QueeRevolutionary

      Shove your gay bashing garbage down your brainwashed Jesus freak throat & choke on it with your Jesus Freak koolaid

      February 26, 2014 at 7:21 pm | Reply
    • Dh

      Same read on the white ones are.

      February 26, 2014 at 10:52 pm | Reply
      • Dh

        Same reason the white ones are.

        February 26, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
  9. Reggie53

    Just imagine that somebody like Van Jones is a host on a TV show. Only CNN would do something like that. The worst you are as a person the more CNN recognizes them. It is about time CNN got some DECENT people on their shows. I am tired of all this garbage that we see.

    February 26, 2014 at 1:24 pm | Reply
    • Carla

      Biget!

      February 26, 2014 at 2:15 pm | Reply
      • southerngent

        biget isn't defined. Can you define it? – Urban Dictionary ... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=biget

        Its "bigot"
        Collins World English Dictionary bigot (ˈbɪɡət)

        — n a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, POLITICS, or race!

        That includes you, Oh holier than thou!

        February 26, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
      • Norrad H

        This might be a far "reach" or "cry" for REPUBLICANS to get white power voters , etc......I am serious , though it sounds nuts, the REPUPLICAN party now is reaching more and more in weirder directions for votes. But this is just FLAT OUT NUTS! I mean really, "Hello, I think you are gay so you cannot eat here because we here, don't believe in this or that". WTF!!

        February 26, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
    • kurt

      You're absolutely right. Their standards are so low that NEWT GINGRICH is on the air for them. That guy has a long history of questionable behavior... much worse then anything Van Jones has done.

      February 26, 2014 at 4:23 pm | Reply
    • O'drama ya Mama

      But I'm sure you are fine with Newt Gingrich, S.E. Cupp and Kevin Madden on the same exact show. All stellar choices right?

      February 26, 2014 at 5:03 pm | Reply
    • Middle Man

      Hey dude, you should change your channel back to FOX. I think they're looking for you!!!

      February 26, 2014 at 5:16 pm | Reply
  10. Middle Man

    Van Jones said it perfectly, "We must never go back to using those six words, we don't serve your kind here". Those advocating discrimination and intolerance behind the disguise of religion are shameful. My faith teaches me not to judge as that is for a higher authority than any of us. Those supporting this law and laws like it are using Gods name in vain. I'll say a prayer for them.

    February 26, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
    • Dh

      Thank you.

      February 26, 2014 at 10:55 pm | Reply
  11. Regressive

    The Christian Right in this country is becoming increasingly non Christian and more and more hypocritical with each passing year. The SBNR crowd is growing as a result and the tea party, conservative sector of the party shrinks and takes more drastic and desperate moves to hold on to power and enforce legislation based on antiquated thinking. The party of "we hate everyone that doesn't look like and think like me"

    February 26, 2014 at 10:10 am | Reply
  12. Steve - Texas

    Probably? HE IS .. as well as a misogynist... Mr. Equipment RAPE this is why you are not Governor. And why you are the perfect example of Today's GOP

    February 26, 2014 at 9:37 am | Reply
  13. Deborah

    LZ is right!

    February 26, 2014 at 9:36 am | Reply
  14. Gigi

    Granderson was far too gentle on the Cooch. Ken's not "probably" a homophobe. He's proved time and time again the he is most definitely a homophobe. I like LZ's line where he said, " You wrap your homophobia around the Bible and find passages to condemn gay people with (sic)." If, as Ken said, this SB 1062 is merely an amendment to a bill that's been on the books in Arizona for more than a decade then it's redundant. Arizona doesn't have anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT people. They do have laws that protect religious "freedom." Arizona is actually one of 29 states where one can be fired or denied housing simply for being gay. If anyone needs "special" rights it's gays, not Christians.

    February 26, 2014 at 7:03 am | Reply
  15. Mag

    Of course he would sign the bill. Which explains why he is not governor today.

    February 26, 2014 at 7:01 am | Reply
  16. david mann

    It's pretty simple really. Would Jesus have signed this bill into law? Of course not. Would the current Pope have signed this bill into law? Of course not. It's just another example of hiding rampant homophobia behind the curtain of Christianity, and is total hypocrisy. Standard MOD for the far right.

    February 26, 2014 at 6:40 am | Reply
  17. NATHAN WIMBERLY

    Cuccinelli can't get elected dog catcher. Who cares what he thinks? The tea potty let him twist in the wind. November comes quickly for all of them.

    February 25, 2014 at 10:58 pm | Reply
  18. Maria Rivera-Carvalho

    "The Cooch" lost for a reason but Repubs never learn. They keep insulting minorities, women and other people of no consequence in their worldview. Democrats will rule for generations.

    February 25, 2014 at 9:59 pm | Reply
    • Dh

      Amen.

      February 26, 2014 at 10:57 pm | Reply
  19. Jeffrey

    Using photographers and cake bakers as an example for supporting discrimination based on Christian beliefs is very lame. These are not just single people deciding for themselves who to work for but by law they are single person businesses. They charge sales tax and have to pay tax on the money they make. They are businesses and not hobbies.

    February 25, 2014 at 9:27 pm | Reply
    • areyouforseriousmyboy

      But businesses that are privately run should have the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for any reason. If they don't receive a penny of governement money they can conduct business as they see fit. This is the advantage of having a free market economy. If you don't like the service you receive at one place, you take your business elsewhere. Chances are very low that NO ONE will take your business.

      February 26, 2014 at 10:14 am | Reply
      • Reggie53

        I agree with you 100%. If I own my own business and I do not want to do business with any particular indivdual, I have my rights to do so. Once I pay my taxes to the government then i am during my duty as a citizen.

        February 26, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
      • Michael

        That is exactly the argument used to support segregation. As Lester Maddox put it, he had nothing against blacks, but he had constitutional property rights that allowed him to run his restaurant (the Pickrick in Atlanta, Georgia) as he pleased. He closed it rather than integrate it, and was then elected governor.

        We've already fought the public accommodations issue. If you want a private club, you can open one; but if you serve the public, you serve them all. If, however, Lester Maddox is your kind of man, then I encourage to spread your opinion loud and clear, so we all know who you are.

        February 28, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
    • Michael

      I really wish we'd hear more examples like the pharmacist & birth control, or the small hotel owner & the unmarried couple. These examples will resonate better than the race example, because 1) these bigots pretend like they would never have supported segregation if they'd been around, so segregation is "different" somehow, and 2) the two examples I mention are present-day realities.

      There was quite a rash of US pharmacies that wouldn't sell emergency contraception back around 2005. What if that were suddenly made legal? Shouldn't people be reminded of this?

      Even more indicting of the "Christian" fundamentalist cause is the issue of unmarried couples staying in hotels. This is a major issue for people traveling in numerous Muslim countries. Is repressive Islam really the example these people want our country to follow? Someone needs to call them out on this.

      February 28, 2014 at 2:36 pm | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.