Steve Doocy Says It's OK For Christians To Discriminate Against Gays?

Let's make a believe that Steve Doocy walks into a Muslim owned drycleaner and the owners say that their religion prohibits them from cleaning his clothes because he is a Catholic. Do ya think that he would meekly accept that and just walk away? One suspects that Fox News and Fox Nation would be all over the story like flies on the metaphorical fecal matter that is a by product of a certain "fair & balanced" network. But now that a New Mexicocourt has ruled that a photographer, who refused to provide services for a same sex "commitment ceremony," based on her Christian religion, was guilty of discrimination based on state non-discrimination statutes. The right wing is whining about violation of religious freedom and Fox Radio's resident homophobe, Todd Starnes, claims that the court says that "gay rights trump religious rights." So are we surprised that Steve Doocy, who thinks discrimination is bad, is part of the Christian amen chorus who believe that discrimination against gays is just what the bible ordered.

This morning, on Fox & Friends, Doocy framed the agiptprop immediately when he reported that the "newest fight against faith reported that a New Mexico court ruled against a photo studio that refused to take pictures of same sex ceremony." (So rather than just reporting the court decision, Doocy defined it as part of the bogus Christian right/Fox News meme of the "war on Christianity.") He asked if private companies should be "forced to compromise their beliefs?" The chyron reinforced the message: "Faith or Discrimination? Private Business Forced to Compromise Beliefs."

Doocy's guest, attorney Vicky Ziegler explained that the court is saying that a private company is being held to the same standard as restaurants, hotels, and theater in that it is considered unlawful for these entities to discriminate. She added that the law now applies to "mom and pop" shops who will be penalized. Doocy sputtered that he doesn't agree with the court because "if you are in private business you can decide who you're going to, for instance, if you're a furniture company or something like that and your arch rival from the town shows up and they want that lazy boy and I don't want to sell it to them I don't think I should have to sell it to them." The chyron: "Losing Their Religion, Court: Biz Must Photograph Same Sex Ceremony." Ziegler noted that theNew Mexicostatute regarding "accommodation" encompasses all businesses involved in commerce. Doocy then tried to redeem himself by saying that discrimination, of any kind, is wrong" but in this case the "court is telling a private business who they can sell their service or goods to, that's gonna be a problem." (D'uuuh, if they're refusing to sell services and goods to gays, or any other protected class, that's called discrimination whether or not it's illegal. In this case, the statute is very clear.)

Ziegler predicted more suits and expressed concern for government "intruding on private businesses." Doocy added "a private business where owners have a religious compass and go can't do that because it's against my religion." Ziegler agreed that "all of sudden we're going to force people to things they don't want to do." Doocy said, with some glee, that the case is going to the Supreme Court.

So not selling to gays, for whatever reason, is just like a furniture company refusing to sell to a rival? And refusing to sell to gays, because of a "religious compass" isn't discrimination?

Is Steve Doocy an idiot or does he play one on TV?

Do you like this post?

	Tweet

Showing 16 reactions

spacegod commented 2012-06-23 02:00:48 -0400 · Flag

The only difference between a bigot and a Christian is that Christians attempt to justify their bigotry by pointing to the Bible wherein someone wrote that gays were bad 2000 years ago.

So? There were bigots and races back then just as there are bigots and racists today.

The delusion of Christians that they are being persecuted just might become reality—but it will be created by the Christians themselves if they continue to be such sanctimonious, clueless, uptight busybodies.

Brian M commented 2012-06-14 08:55:02 -0400 · Flag

I definitely see your point Chico, but there are some people who would cross that line of right and wrong and take the photos anyway for a buck.

Of course, there are laws against child pornography.

…and that’s sort of where the government comes in. Different people have different moral standards. To some, homosexuality is reprehensible, while to other, clear-thinking, rational people, there’s nothing wrong with it. Likewise, some would say “Whatever, if he wants to take pictures with little boys, I don’t care as long as he pays me to take the photos.” There needs to be some sort of standard here. Obviously, it can’t be 100% laissez faire, but it also can’t be dictated by fundamentalists.

Kent Brockman commented 2012-06-14 04:06:55 -0400 · Flag

For christo-facist-nut-tards, Jesus is a weapon. Their church should place a sign on the lawn “Service Not Available To Undesirables”, with a list of those considered ‘undesirable’.

Richard Speight commented 2012-06-14 03:44:37 -0400 · Flag

And what would his reaction be if the photographer had refused on the grounds the client was black?

Chico Brisbane commented 2012-06-13 22:08:50 -0400 · Flag

What would you do if Jerry Sandusky wanted you to shoot a few glossy 8 × 10′s of him with a few pubescent boys sitting on each of his knees. My point is that in a truely free America, a business owner should have the right to refuse the right service to any person for any reason whatsoever. Let the public-at-large decide the fate of racists and homophobic business owners. It’s not up to the government to decide.

Brian M commented 2012-06-13 20:13:55 -0400 · Flag

Unfortunately Greg, if you insist that being gay is a choice, that’s the difference, I guess.

Lakeview Greg commented 2012-06-13 19:43:42 -0400 · Flag

What is the difference between, “No Jews”, “No Blacks”, “No Irish”, “No Catholics” and “No LGBT?”

None that I can tell.
All I want is the same set of civil rights Doocy has.

vermontdave commented 2012-06-13 19:35:00 -0400 · Flag

Good point, Gooch! It seems like the photographer isn’t a very good business owner. Outside of the ridiculous ‘against my religion to photograph teh gay’ meme, she turns away a job that would likely pay pretty well. That’s just dumb.

Gooch X commented 2012-06-13 18:35:16 -0400 · Flag

How exactly does taking pictures of a homosexual couple violate one’s Christian beliefs? I don’t seem to recall a “thou shalt not photograph gay people” commandment appearing anywhere in the bible. In fact, I’m pretty sure the bible doesn’t mention photography at all.

Brian M commented 2012-06-13 17:36:55 -0400 · Flag

I’ll one up you, and say what if the bride wanted to wear a POLY-COTTON BLEND tuxedo suit instead of a bridezilla concoction, thus being a violation of Leviticus where it says not wear clothes of mixed materials. BABY JESUS IS CRYING, THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

I didn’t know New Mexico had a law stating that you have to serve everybody if you’re going to run a business. What kind of business only does “private” business, anyway? My wife’s bridal party consisted entirely of gay men (with the exception of her sister), does that mean our photographer could have shown up and been like “Oh my, that’s not traditional and offends my Christian sensibilities, I’m leaving”?

I just don’t understand any of it. Don’t they believe Jesus wants them to be prosperous? Who gives a shit if they’re gay? Aren’t they still giving you a ton of money to take pictures of their ceremony? Just take the photos, take the money, and go home? I mean, how stupid can you be, in this economy, to REFUSE work?

Joseph West commented 2012-06-13 17:10:31 -0400 · Flag

Brian, the couple (as I understood the case) DID go to another photographer but only AFTER this “christian” douche was made aware that the planned photo shoot was for a same-sex ceremony at which point the “christian” woman declared that such a ceremony violated her religious beliefs. (Bear in mind this incident happened in 2006.)

Now, why this is so important is because the woman’s beliefs COULD very well have been used by her to refuse her services (which ARE made available to the public—they’re NOT “private”) to an interracial couple or even an interfaith couple (or even an interracial, atheist couple). NONE of those denials of service would be legal under ANY circumstances. But, she apparently believes that she has a “right” to refuse service to same-sex couples based solely on her religious beliefs. Heck, what if the bride—in a “traditional” male-female couple—wanted to wear a woman’s tuxedo instead of some Bridezilla creation? The photographer COULD assert her “religious beliefs” to refuse to take pictures. Would you find that an acceptable argument?

New Mexico has a Human Rights Act that “places of public accommodation not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation” (as a HuffPost article states). If you want to run and maintain a business in New Mexico, and you intend on “serving the public,” you HAVE to abide by this requirement. (I would guess that, if you simply take pictures as a sideline or hobby, you would be largely exempt from the requirement; presumably such an individual doesn’t advertise but instead relies on word-of-mouth, and presumably charges just a small fee. Kind of the way a person might be willing to bake cakes or cookies for fellow congregants or co-workers who, in turn, tell others about the person but who doesn’t really “make a living” out of the baking jobs but just does it in their spare time or to make a few extra dollars.)

Visitor 55 commented 2012-06-13 16:40:55 -0400 · Flag

And I just bet that if the public decides to boycott the homophobe photographer, douchey will crap his panties and squeal discrimination.

Brian M commented 2012-06-13 14:34:10 -0400 · Flag

In regards to the hypothetical at the beginning of this post: if I were Catholic and a Muslim dry cleaner said “I won’t clean your clothes because you’re Catholic and I’m Muslim,” I’d just say “Fine, screw you buddy” and go to another cleaner.

So, the two situations being similar, why didn’t the couple just find a different photographer?

Did they have a contract with this photographer, and then they suddenly were like “Oh wait, you’re gay? Yea nevermind.” That’s the only way I see it could being a legitimate case. Otherwise, why not just say “fuck ’em” and find another photog?

NewsHounds posted about Steve Doocy Says It's OK For Christians To Discriminate Against Gays? on NewsHounds' Facebook page 2012-06-13 12:43:07 -0400

Steve Doocy Says It's OK For Christians To Discriminate Against Gays?

Ron Donaghe commented 2012-06-13 12:30:50 -0400 · Flag

I can’t see the difference between a “private” business and a mom and pop cafe. They’re both charging the public for their services. So how is a photography business any different? It would be “private,” would it not, if they didn’t charge the public for their services? Is a privately held hospital going to be able say, we don’t treat gays and lesbians?