Dana Loesch’s Bizarre Idea of Religious Freedom and Discrimination

A panel at CPAC last week featured right wing talk show host, Dana Loesch, Tony Perkins and Rep. Randy Neugebauer discussing religious freedom. Loesch made this absolutely bizarre argument that if we don’t protect the right of Christians to discriminate against gay people, that could lead to gays being stoned in the street.

“You don’t have to be a Christians to be affected by loss of religious liberty, because if one liberty is taken, more liberties will be taken,” she said. “If I’m not speaking up [while] you’re losing rights then what will happen to me when the day comes, if someone comes to me? What if you’re stoned for walking out in the street for being gay? I mean, come on, that’s where the conversation needs to go.”

*boggle* I mean, I kinda get the point I think she thought she was trying to make, which is that if we don’t protect the rights of Christians we can’t protect the rights of gay people either. But that’s nonsense in this case. If anything, the opposite is true. By allowing Christians to discriminate against, and thus marginalize, gay people, we make it more likely that violence is committed against them. No one is demanding the right to refuse to hire or serve Christians.

httpv://youtu.be/qNdzHdJmOCI

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • rationalinks

    I wonder if it hurt getting her mind to contort like that.

  • D. C. Sessions

    And curiously, not a single member of the audience yelled, “You lie!”

  • http://en.gravatar.com/mrupright Mr. Upright

    Ed, you should create a keyboard macro for “Dana Loesch’s Bizarre Idea of” to save typing in future posts.

  • John Pieret

    Trust me … if someone comes to stone Christians (even a moron like you), we will protect them just as vigorously as we protect LGBT people from that. And if a LGBT owner of a business of public accommodation refuses to serve Christians, we’ll apply anti-discrimination laws against them. In fact, we are much more likely to enforce them against LGBT people than vice versa because many, if not most of the existing anti-discrimination laws cover religion but not sexual orientation/gender identity.

  • grumpyoldfart

    I like the guy on the left, the way he interrupted the girl to get in his “April 1st” joke – and then looked towards the audience as if to say, “See how clever I am.”

  • M can help you with that.

    This sounded almost like a threat…”Well, if we can’t legally fire you, harass you, refuse to do business with you and run you out of town, then we’ll have no option but to murder you in the street instead — how would you like that?”

  • Larry

    So you see, LGBT folk, its really for your own good.

  • U Frood

    And if a LGBT owner of a business of public accommodation refuses to serve Christians, we’ll apply anti-discrimination laws against them.

    I will point and laugh at them first

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    I seriously marvel at the way they’ve redefined “religious freedom” to mean “my religion gives me the freedom to violate other people’s rights”. By their own reasoning, the rest of us should have the right to discriminate against Christians. I wonder how many of the people who sat there and listened realized what transparent bullshit this all is. The self-contradiction isn’t even subtle.

  • Sastra

    Like M at #6 my first thought was that this is a veiled threat, ala Islamists being “provoked.”

    But then I reread it and yeah, I think she was just trying to do one of those variations of “At first they came for the X, and I didn’t speak up because I’m not an X.” Which doesn’t work.

    Some day when she can’t buy a cake for Easter because she’s a Christian, maybe then she’ll see why her own analogy didn’t work.

  • carnerojo

    Well, at least Dana’s properly attired per the Roger Ailes’ mandated FOX newsbabe lotsa-leg cocktail dress code. Nice eye-candy for the martini generation. Now, if only she was blonde (sigh)