Bill O'Reilly, Adam Carolla Spread Homophobic Paranoia

After Bill O'Reilly made his infamous "thumping the bible" comment, there was speculation that his position on same sex marriage had evolved; especially given that he defended his comment even after receiving blowback from the religious right. He was validated by his Fox pals including Megyn Kelly who claimed that Bill wasn't being pejorative because he's an awesome advocate for religious freedom. So was it his concern for religious freedom or an attempt to assuage the "thumpers" when Bill attacked "fascist" gay students who want a Catholic college chaplain removed from campus for his anti-gay comments? And in what might appear to be another effort to play to those whom he offended, under the rubric of religious liberty, he later agreed with Adam Carolla that same sex marriage will lead to gays demanding that they get church weddings - a meme pimped by opponents of marriage equality. Evolution? Maybe not so much!

On Monday night's "Rollin with Carolla" segment, Bill joked that Carolla is causing trouble over comments Carolla made during a recent podcast. O'Reilly played the tape of Carolla asking his audience if, after same sex marriage is legalized "we'll be done with it" because gays will say "we want to get married at the Crystal Cathedral" and the guys at the church will say "we don't agree with it and according to our faith, a man doesn't lie down with another man and then there's gonna be a march and then there's gonna be a thing and it's going to the Supreme Court again, that much, I know." O'Reilly cited his earlier report about the Catholic chaplain and called Carolla a "prophet."

Wrong - the students at George Washington University were not asking to be married by a Catholic priest. They were concerned that his public comments, that those who are involved in same sex relationships are "unnatural and immoral," are divisive and possibly counter to the school's anti-discrimination code.

O'Reilly predicted that "it's not going to stop with the legitimacy if it comes of gay marriage." Carolla said that we're still arguing about race, even after the election of an African-American president and that's why he didn't think that "giving gay people the right to be married would ratchet down the argument." (Memo to Carolla - race is still a very divisive issue and the election of a black president seems to have exacerbated it. )

He then did some comedy (?) about how he "loves gay people" and that they should be subsidized because they gentrify neighborhoods. That's when things got really strange. O'Reilly played good cop and bad cop all in one sentence: "Bottom line is this, homosexual Americans want respect and that's what it's all about and that's why your right, the debate is not gonna end." So gays want respect; but they're also overreaching in order to force unreasonable concessions from "traditional" institutions? WTF?

Doing his best Beavis & Butthead, Carolla snarked "you said bottom line, Bill, that was funny." Laughter was heard in the background. Bill said "you're welcome."

The argument that gays will not be happy achieving all the benefits of marriage equality is offensive and ridiculous. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for many years and there have been no attempts to force clergy, whose faiths don't support same sex marriage to marry them. And why would they want to take up a futile legal battle (churches have the right to marry whomever they want) to get married by a hostile church. It makes no sense; but it is persuasive as part of the anti-gay marriage playbook about the "slippery slope."

If you want to talk "bottom," Bill O'Reilly's lies and personal attacks are on the lowest level of media bloviation. For any other meaning of the word, I'll just leave that to your imagination ;)

Showing 12 reactions

commented 2013-04-14 10:35:37 -0400 · Flag

By the way people, the lowest rated show on Fox has more viewers than the highest rated show on MSNBC.

commented 2013-04-13 04:23:33 -0400 · Flag

@ Rogers: And WAY to miss the point. The lawsuit had NOTHING to do with “gay marriage” but ALL to do with a sanctimonious pig acting in an ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATORY manner. The cow knows that she would NEVER be allowed to get away with using “religious beliefs” to discriminate against an interfaith or interracial couple but she feels her discrimination should be allowed because this particular couple is gay. IMS, from other stories I’ve read on the issue, one of the men who was discriminated against by this cow was a LONG-TIME CUSTOMER, and the cow KNEW that he’s gay. So, obviously her “religious beliefs” aren’t strong enough to turn him away as a customer for his other floral needs but only when he went to her (a cow whose business he’d been patronizing for many years) for flowers for his (legal in the State of Washington) impending marriage.

When pigs choose to BREAK THE LAW by practicing blatant discrimination, it doesn’t fucking matter what their religious beliefs are. This cow was operating a business, open to the public at large. That makes it a “public accomodation” and in the State of Washington, you are NOT allowed to discriminate against anyone.

As for Carolla, he’s also a washed-up hack and his religious (or lack of religious) views as well as his marijuana legalization views have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. He’s not a lawyer; he has no legal insight. And his “legal” opinions have no more merit or weight than yours or mine. Again. This cow is being sued because she chose to discriminate which, in Washington, is against the law.

commented 2013-04-13 02:56:29 -0400 · Flag

I meant to ban John Smith but I hit the wrong button and deleted him. Not that I’ll miss him but that’s what happened.

commented 2013-04-12 23:18:39 -0400 · Flag

You are off on Carolla.

commented 2013-04-12 20:31:13 -0400 · Flag

John Smith, Since you think so lowly of us, you’ll surely want to leave this site for good.

commented 2013-04-12 16:20:30 -0400 · Flag

Why are those mopes so concerned about my penis? I do appreciate the concern but they should look after their own first.

commented 2013-04-12 15:09:49 -0400 · Flag

@ Rogers: Unfortunately, that case in Washington isn’t quite so cut and dried. You see, in the State of Washington, there’s a law that prohibits ANY form of discrimination (gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) on the part of a COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. This is NOT a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” deal (as long as the business isn’t guilty of discriminating against a person for OTHER reasons; if you owned or managed a hardware store, I don’t think you’d want people walking around the store in their bare feet because of nails or stray wood chips and if you owned a restaurant, I doubt you’d want to run the risk of a health inspector coming in when a group of barefoot, shirtless guys decide to stop in and grab a bite to eat). The florist in the case was in business to MAKE MONEY from customers. If this witch chose to refuse service to Black customers or Jewish customers, she’d be sued as well. Using religion to back your bigotry is inexcusable, and that’s what this cow is doing (and she knows it).

The right-wing has been pulling this same crap with the Affordable Care Act, where a bunch of COMMERCIAL businesses whose owners happen to be right-wing Christians are trying to say they’re exempt because their business are “religious in nature.” That’s a bunch of bovine excrement, and they know it. Hobby Lobby (for example) does NOT have a chapel on its premises where people come in and worship; even if they did, that’s NOT the primary reason the story exists, therefore, it’s NOT “religious in nature.” These companies are NOT allowed to discriminate when hiring under FEDERAL laws (and many state laws afford even more protection against discrimination), so why do they think they have a right to discriminate against the people who do business with them?

commented 2013-04-12 14:49:51 -0400 · Flag

@ Troll Smith: If you’re married, then you’re obviously blind to the “advantages to being married.” A big one is the tax form. Take a look at your Federal form (and, most likely, your State form), and see how many boxes exist for “married.” There will be TWO. Single people, however, have only one. (Gay couples are, for Federal purposes, forced to file as “Single.” The “Head of household” status is usually for singles, but most often people who are single as a result of divorce.)

Then, there’s hospital visitation rights. Gay couples who are in “civil unions” can still be denied visitation rights in privately run hospitals, even denied any say in the hospitalized spouse’s (yes, I wrote spouse—deal with it) care if the hospital refuses to recognize the civil union (and in the 30+ states which constitutionally prohibit recognition of ANYTHING resembling marriage, this is highly possible) and refuses to recognize all the couple’s legal documents, including the power of attorney. If a gay couple is in a state where the hospitalized spouse’s “birth family” lives, THEY get precedence in making decisions for the hospitalized person, not the person’s spouse or legally designated caregiver.

And then, there’s the matter of inheritance. There are literally hundreds of horror stories where a gay couple’s lifetime is ripped asunder because the family of the deceased spouse challenges the validity of any will the dead gay person had made during the couple’s time together. And, unfortunately, in most states, a dead person’s birth family gets precedent over the designated heirs in a will IF the dead person is gay or lesbian and the designated heir is his or her same-sex spouse (because, as noted above, there are 30+ states which do NOT recognize anything that resembles marriage). One of the cases currently before the Supreme Court involves the unfairness in inheritance laws. The plaintiff—who was legally married to her wife at the time of the wife’s death—was forced, due to tax laws, to pay taxes on the inheritance as though she were not related by marriage. A hetero couple, on the other hand, gets a large tax exemption on the estate when one spouse dies.

The list goes on. Of course, since you’re apparently not gay, you don’t recognize the “hetero privilege” that comes with marriage.

commented 2013-04-12 10:28:02 -0400 · Flag

Bildo has a bizarre affinity for washed-up comedians like Camry, D-List Dennis and Gutfart.

commented 2013-04-12 03:23:28 -0400 · Flag

“He then did some comedy (?) about how he “loves gay people” and that they should be subsidized because they gentrify neighborhoods."

What a coincidence- Dennis Miller did the same thing, he just played the approach of that supposedly his friends in the LBGT community are sick of hearing about equality- like it’s a big annoyance to them:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2292045925001/miller-time-craziness-in-california/?playlist_id=938973798001

And didn’t Greg Gutfeld and Steven Crowder play that same fiddle recently off the Fox News camera? I can’t remember how recenty, but it seems like they both said something similar to this not too long ago.

I swear that the Fox News “comedians” all share the same brain- they just draw their primary reasons out of a hat to sound like they have different reasons for the same “thought.”

commented 2013-04-12 01:21:25 -0400 · Flag

I suppose Carolla can point out all the Jewish couples who’ve successfully been married in Catholic churches or Catholic couples who’ve successfully been married in Mormon tabernacles. Simple fact is that no church (regardless of religious sect, denomination or cult) can be forced to marry someone who’s not a member of that church or that faith.

But, I bet there are a lot of interfaith couples (perhaps even a few interracial couples) who can point out how their weddings were “ruined” because one half of the couple had her* heart set on being married by her long-time family minister** (and the other half didn’t really care about the actual venue) but the minister was required to refuse because the faith*** prohibits its facilities and its clergy**** from participating in interfaith ceremonies (unless, the “infidel” is willing to convert to the faith).

Okay. Maybe there aren’t a lot of interfaith couples who suffered because the church*** of their choice was unavailable due to religious ~~bigotry~~ reasons but, historically, there have been some. But, as far as I know, there’s NEVER been a case that’s gone to court because the couple (interfaith hetero or atheist same-sex) was denied a particular religious venue’s facilities. (Granted, there was a case where a religious group in New Jersey had some property they rented out for weddings and some same-sex couples sued but the property was not an actual church where worship services were regularly conducted. There is a bit of a difference between some beachfront property with a gazebo and a church, complete with altar and stained glass windows.)

Used since women tend to have a stronger view on, or more emotional tie to, the wedding venue.
*Substitute rabbi, imam, priest, pastor, whatever appropriate clerical term is used.
*Used as a neutral term.
**Used as a neutral term for whatever person would officiate in the faith’s religious ceremonies.

NewsHounds posted about Bill O'Reilly, Adam Carolla Spread Homophobic Paranoia on NewsHounds' Facebook page 2013-04-11 22:37:44 -0400

Bill O'Reilly, Adam Carolla Spread Homophobic Paranoia