Carlson: It’s Fascism! Fascism!

Obnoxious little twerp Tucker Carlson thinks it’s “fascism” if you don’t allow Christians to discriminate against gay people, but apparently not fascism if you don’t allow them to discriminate against black people or women or Jewish people or anyone else.

“I mean, if you want to have a gay wedding, fine, go ahead,” Carlson told Fox News host Martha MacCallum. “If I don’t want to bake you a cake for your gay wedding, that’s okay too… That’s called tolerance.”

“But when you try and force me to bake a cake for your gay wedding and threaten me with prison if I don’t, that’s called fascism.”

Fox News contributor Alan Colmes, however, observed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal for places of public accommodation not to serve minorities.

“If you’re open for business, you can’t deny people based on their color, based on their sexual orientation,” MacCallum pointed out to Carlson. “So, how do you defend the baker who says, I’m not going to make your cake. They walk in, you’re open for business to the public. I mean, why would you deny someone the cake?”

“Clearly we’re in a moment of national hysteria here, where people who disagree get crushed,” Carlson opined. “Who are these people who are pushing for the imprisonment of someone who just doesn’t feel comfortable baking a cake for gay wedding. This is insane. Let’s just be honest about it.”

“What if I’m a business owner and I say I don’t want to make a cake for a black wedding?” Colmes wondered.

“Everybody is always invoking that,” Carlson complained. “It’s ludicrous. There is, what, 3,000 years of opposition to gay marriage. This is not my view, but I think it’s important to acknowledged that you can oppose gay marriage and not be a Klansman.”

“Either you’re open for business or you’re not open for business,” MacCallum argued. “But you can’t pick and choose based on, you know, different criteria, anymore than a Muslim bakery can say, you can’t come in here unless you have your head covered if you’re a woman to shop here. You can’t do that.”

“I can say, look, you can’t come into my bakery naked,” Carlson shot back, “You can’t come in here and use vulgar language. You can’t come in drunk. If you own the business, you have to have some right to make decisions.”

“Tucker, are you against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?” Colmes pressed.

“Don’t bring this into this,” Carlson snarled. “The bottom line is you are defending the use of government to crush people who don’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I’m just telling you that this has gone too far.

See, this is the problem with conservatives trying to have it both ways. If you want to take the position that all anti-discrimination laws are wrong, you’re at least being consistent. But if you take the position that all the other anti-discrimination laws are fine but protecting gay people against discrimination is “fascism,” you’re going to look quite ridiculous. Of course, Tucker Carlson always looks ridiculous.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Josh Bunting

    Anyone who would not drop whatever they’re doing in order to watch Tucker Carlson get his teeth kicked in is un-American.

  • John Pieret

    Heck, even the blond Faux News host (whoever she is) couldn’t believe what Carlson was saying. But nobody challenged him about his constant refrain that this was about imprisoning people who won’t bake a cake for a gay wedding. Now, I don’t know each and every state and local anti-discrimination law but can anyone cite one that carries prison as a penalty for violating them?

  • Chiroptera

    “I mean, if you want to have a gay wedding, fine, go ahead,” Carlson told Fox News host Martha MacCallum.

    What? That’s not what you’re been saying before. In fact, you’re been screaming and hollering against same sex marriage by claiming that it’s not fine!

    “If I don’t want to bake you a cake for your gay wedding, that’s okay too…”

    If you are just a private citizen, then, yeah, no one can force you to bake cake. But once you decide to open a business, then we are allowed to require you to run it within reasonable standards. And one of the standards we’ve decided is reasonable is: don’t discriminate.

    “That’s called tolerance.”

    Actually, it’s the exact opposite.

  • lofgren

    Now, I don’t know each and every state and local anti-discrimination law but can anyone cite one that carries prison as a penalty for violating them?

    I looked this up recently and I don’t recall any that involve prison time unless you use physical violence to expel the person you are discriminating against.

    Interestingly antidiscrimination penalties vary significantly by state. I think my favorite was that in one state (can’t remember which now) the monetary penalty was rather small, but the company had to include in all of its advertising that they discriminate. Not even libertarians could argue with that.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    John Pieret “Now, I don’t know each and every state and local anti-discrimination law but can anyone cite one that carries prison as a penalty for violating them?”

    Yes. Now are you people sorry nobody read the Obamacare bill before it passed?

  • John Pieret

    lofgren @ 4

    I looked this up recently and I don’t recall any that involve prison time unless you use physical violence to expel the person you are discriminating against.

    But that would fall under the regular laws against assault anyway.

    I think my favorite was that in one state (can’t remember which now) the monetary penalty was rather small, but the company had to include in all of its advertising that they discriminate.

    Yes, I think that may, ultimately, be the best way to handle it. Let their precious “free market” handle it. Even the blond Faux News host saw that as legitimate.

  • John Pieret

    Modus:

    But since nobody has read the Obamacare bill since it has been passed, it can’t be used to throw people in jail!

  • caseloweraz

    “Clearly we’re in a moment of national hysteria here, where people who disagree get crushed,” Carlson opined.

    After the studio crew swept his remains off the floor, normal programming resumed.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    John Pieret “Modus: But since nobody has read the Obamacare bill since it has been passed, it can’t be used to throw people in jail!”

    Nobody? The text is just Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Hitler’s Mein Kamph and Mao Tse-tung’s [Chow] Mein Kamph, so you liberals already knew what was in it, and what to do. What was Obama’s “go code” to you to start oppressing Real Americans? Was it him “winning” the election? Was it his Muslim fistbump with one of his wives? Was it him dividing America? It was him dividing America, wasn’t it?

  • John Pieret

    It was him dividing America, wasn’t it?

    Damn it Modus! Where did you get one of our Enigma machines?

  • Randomfactor

    Obamacare works by quantum methods. Looking at it will collapse the state vector or something.

  • John Pieret

    “Clearly we’re in a moment of national hysteria here, where people who disagree get crushed,” Carlson opined.

    We are clearly in a moment of national hysteria here, where people who are in business to serve the public think that baking a cake is a religious act.

  • http://naturistsociety.comaanr.com jenny6833a

    ““I can say, look, you can’t come into my bakery naked,” Carlson shot back, “You can’t come in here and use vulgar language. You can’t come in drunk. If you own the business, you have to have some right to make decisions.””

    Hmmmmm. Is nudity really to be equated with using vulgar language and being drunk?

  • lofgren

    But that would fall under the regular laws against assault anyway.

    I’m not entirely sure that is true. If somebody comes in drunk and they are disrupting your business, it seems reasonable that you would be allowed to “escort” them off your property. Bouncers do it regularly. In any event, violating antidiscrimination laws in this way is automatically a hate crime, so the penalty is greater than other assaults.

  • lofgren

    Yes, I think that may, ultimately, be the best way to handle it. Let their precious “free market” handle it. Even the blond Faux News host saw that as legitimate.

    Of course it is a double-edged sword. Small businesses in small towns might even consider it a point of pride. There are plenty of business owners that would be happy to dust off their “Whites Only” signs.

  • Moggie

    But when you try and force me to bake a cake for your gay wedding and threaten me with prison if I don’t, that’s called fascism.

    He’s right! Have people forgotten that the Schwulenhochzeitskuchenstaffel was one of the most feared NSDAP units in the mid-1930s? Look, if we let the homos force their gay baked goods down our throats, before you know it they’ll be firing up the ovens! We need torte reform now!

  • dan4

    @12: “…think that baking a cake is a religious act…”

    Huh? The issue here involves people forced by law to bake a cake for an event that would VIOLATE their religious beliefs. How you confuse that with “baking a cake is a religious act” is beyond me.

  • Michael Heath

    Tucker Carlson states:

    I think it’s important to acknowledged that you can oppose gay marriage and not be a Klansman.”

    True, but those people in that particular set are not white, whereas Mr. Carlson is white. In the U.S. we typically find that those white people who are bigoted against gay people are also racists. It’s called the Republican party where they also frequent political or theologically conservative Christian denominations.

  • Phillip IV

    But when you try and force me to bake a cake

    Actually, I don’t think Carlson has ever managed to produce anything that was more than half-baked.

  • abusedbypenguins

    The stupid fish that is displayed in the windows and advertising of any business lets me know that those people are strange and to stay away from them.

  • felidae

    All one has to do is substitute the word “interracial” for the word “gay” in these folk’s arguments to prove they are simply bigots. I remember in the 60’s the argument against interracial marriage was that it was “against the law of God for the races to be mixed”

  • D. C. Sessions

    OK, I think Moggie upset Modus for today’s Internet.

  • John Pieret

    The issue here involves people forced by law to bake a cake for an event that would VIOLATE their religious beliefs.

    If they are claiming that doing an act violates their religious beliefs, how can it not be a religious act?

  • Chiroptera

    dan4, #17: The issue here involves people forced by law to bake a cake for an event that would VIOLATE their religious beliefs.

    If weddings violate their religious beliefs, why would they be baking cakes for it to begin with?

  • Athywren

    Why do they always rush to fascism?

    I’m watching Schindler’s List right now… I can’t say for sure, but I believe it would be a far less depressing film if it was about telling people they can’t refuse to serve paying customers who happen to love the wrong person. So, is it just me, or are these people who will call fascism at anything that points out to them that their treatment of other human beings is appalling demonstrating a total lack of any moral fibre? Or is this all a dissociative hallucination before I herd the poor, put upon conservatives into the gas chambers? For all their ranting, I sometimes wonder.

  • dan4

    @23: Huh? When a person violates their religious beliefs, that itself is, uh, a “religion?” Still not getting you.

    @24: That’s dishonest. HOMOSEXUAL weddings violate their religious beliefs. Most weddings are heterosexual, so a “why did they decide to become bake cakes for a living if they didn’t want to do it for gay couples” response is rathe silly.

  • dan4

    “…rather…”

  • Chiroptera

    dan4, #26: That’s dishonest.

    Actually, it’s a joke. I’d explain it, but my feeling is if I need to explain it then it wasn’t really very funny.

    Most weddings are heterosexual, so a “why did they decide to become bake cakes for a living if they didn’t want to do it for gay couples” response is rathe[r] silly.

    That’s not really the point. The point is, every single state and most countries have conditions that a person must meet to run a business. If a person’s religion doesn’t allow them to meet those conditions, then in most cases that person just can’t run a business.

    I think that in every state one of the conditions a person must meet to run a business is that they cannot discriminate against particular groups. If a person’s religion requires them to discriminate against certain groups of people, then that person cannot engage in business.

    Some states have added GBLT to their lists of groups that cannot be discriminated against. Again, if someone’s religion requires them to discriminate against gay people, then that person cannot run a business in those states.

    And, you know, it just occurs to me; it’s not as if anyone’s religion requires that they discriminate against gay people in their business. I could be wrong, but no major religious denomination in the US explicitly prohibits anyone from selling a wedding cake to a gay couple. As far as I know, no one is refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because they think that the sale would itself constitute a sin.

    My understanding (which may be wrong) is that the people who don’t want to sell wedding cakes to gay people or don’t want to take pictures of happy gay people are refusing to do so just because they don’t like gay people. To me, that is a really, really big distinction.

  • smrnda

    If you don’t want to possibly bake cakes for gay weddings, nobody puts a gun to your head and makes you open up a bakery. Getting into a business comes with many inevitable conditions. If you’re that preoccupied with these issues about what you might accidentally PROVIDE SERVICE TO get out of business. If you’re terrified you’ll sell alcohol to an alcoholic, don’t sell booze.

    The notion that baking a cake equates to participating in the wedding is absurd and ludicrous, and would be laughed at if applied to any other sort of event. The caterers at most events are clearly distinct from the participants – the participants are eating, drinking and making merry instead of working; the caterers are most definitely NOT at the party. When someone prints out flyers, they are not participating in the event advertized in the flyers, nor is printing the flyers taken as any sort of endorsement on the part of the person doing the printing.

    The logic used to argue that selling a wedding cake for a gay marriage would mean that it would be wrong for a Christian to sell a Bible to an atheist who would read it in an irreverent manner. I don’t want to live in a world where businesses will grill me on my ethics and lifestyle before selling me a product.

  • Lyle

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the second that I am legally permitted and insulated from backlash when discriminating against a Christian just for being a Christian, then I will wholeheartedly support the bill like the one that Jan Brewer vetoed last week. Until then, I’ll scan their fucking groceries, accept their fucking money, and thank them for their fucking patronage.

  • observer

    To my knowledge, gay marriage is not legal in any of the states that have attempted to pass the anti-gay “religious freedom” acts, so that pretext is bogus. Furthermore, these laws have so far been drafted in such away to allow descrimination of almost any form so long as it is motivated by religious sentiment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1263615255 Joshua

    This problem illustrates part of the problem with Christianity. Christians are not content to live by the tenants of their own religion themselves. They feel it is their duty to force everyone else to live by them too. It isn’t good enough for them to not get gay married. No. They must also prevent others from getting gay married, or, at least, do what they can to make it more difficult. So, if refusing to bake a cake makes it a little harder then they feel they have done their good deed for a day. And Christians ask me why I hate Christianity so much.

  • whheydt

    Re: observer @ #31;

    Yet.

    Some of them are covered by appellate circuits that appear likely to rule favorably to SSM on appeals of district court decision. Arizona, for instance is covered by the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit is the one in which the Nevada AG recently admitted that he has no defense for his states anti-SSM laws in light of the decision that lawyers cannot dismiss gay jurors just for being gay.

    So what are the odds that one of the states where this nonsense is being attempted will suddenly find that SSM is legal, like it or not, even if there is no case in that particular state?

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    @ 20.abusedbypenguins :

    “The stupid fish that is displayed in the windows and advertising of any business lets me know that those people are strange and to stay away from them.”

    Umm, isn’t that unfair discrimination?

    In fairness, not all Christians are homophobes and many now support equal marriage among other progressive values.

    Being “strange” can also be good too if it harms no one.

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    @32. Joshua (& others on FTB too I think) : Hmm. Isn’t that a bit of an overgeneralisation?

    Replace the word “Christians” there with “Jews” or “Hindus” or “atheists” and then do you think it sounds fair?

    FWIW. I’m not Christian myself – agnostic & humanist I am – but I do think this is worth pointing out.

  • dingojack

    Stevo – follow the evidence. (As an example re-read the leader. By their love you shall know them).

    Dingo

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    They’re just preparing for the day when us population is predominantly hispanic, and restaurateurs put up signs reading “no WASPs allowed”

    Who’d complain about their right to discriminate?

  • escuerd

    I think Carlson has some personal issues with his own sexuality that he’s compensating for. A gay acquaintance of mine from the South was telling me about one of his gay conservative friends. He mentioned in passing (and in his ever-blunt manner) that this friend used to be Tucker Carlson’s “butt boy”.

    In retrospect, it should have been obvious, especially from interactions like this (where he’s on a panel talking about fellow closeted conservative Larry Craig and his wacky bathroom capers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B996XPC2eD8

    In that video, Carlson awkwardly recounts a story about how he was “bothered” in a public bathroom once, and then when pressed further about it, claims he went back and beat the guy up (which sounds, if you listen to him say it, like he’s making that part up on the spot to avoid saying anything too revealing about himself). It’s the sort of thing a certain type of closeted gay man will do because they feel this need to overcompensate on the machismo. I have seen that kind of overcompensation in myself and others at such points (I hope, and would like to think, that I was never that bad, and certainly didn’t make up stories about having beaten guys up for coming onto me).

    There are some non-closeted gay people (mostly conservative or libertarians) who would agree with Carlson’s positions (and the more principled ones would be opposed to the civil rights act as a whole). These Uncle Mary types typically think that if gay people just don’t ask for too much or act too gay, then everything would be just fine. I suspect that, once he’s outed, this is what Carlson will just turn into another of those so that he can continue his sanctimonious douchebaggery without skipping a beat. He already likes to keep repeating the line that “I’m the least anti-gay conservative I know.” Because it can’t really be homophobia if I also like the dick, amirite? But seriously straight conservative people, please accept me! Pretty please!

    I was a bit hesitant to post this, because I feel like I’m always the commenter on this blog who’s accusing conservative and religious sorts (viz Tim Tebow and Andrew Shirvell) of being closeted gay men on this blog, but god damn it, this has become a cliché for a reason.

  • escuerd

    Blech. I need to stop writing comments on no sleep, or at least start proofreading the damn things.

  • Athywren

    I can’t help but wonder, if a Jehovah’s Witness becomes a surgeon, is it a violation of their religious freedom to give their patient a blood transfusion? I know there’s a difference of degree in the effect to the other party, but surely a violation of religious freedom s a violation of religious freedom? So can a religious surgeon allow their patients to bleed to death under this religious freedom act? And if not, why not?

  • lancifer

    DC Sessions,

    “OK, I think Moggie upset Modus for today’s Internet.

    Agreed.

    I especially liked his call for “torte reform”.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Look, if we let the homos force their gay baked goods down our throats,” . Like these?:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Penis+dessert+pans&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

    “How you confuse that with “baking a cake is a religious act” is beyond me.”

    As is most logic.

    “In fairness, not all Christians are homophobes and many now support equal marriage among other progressive values.”

    The ones who put the fish in their windows, pretty generally, are. I always avoid any establishment that actively pushes their JESUS delusion because they are, in my experience, excuse by their GOD from being cheating fuckwads in business for so long as they tithe. Fuck them, fuck their GOD.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    lancifer “I especially liked his call for “torte reform”.”

    I have it on good authority that the US doesn’t tourtiere.

  • dingojack

    Hey – hands off my right to decoration of pastries* or you’l get slapped with a Torte-ious interference of contract!

    :) Dingo