Disgraced Chaplain Claims On-Camera That Martin Luther King Endorsed Discrimination of Gays

There’s no spiritual message so clear and straightforward that a creative Bible-beater can’t find a way to claim it means the opposite of what the original source intended. How many Christians do you know who somehow never understood — or more accurately, never lived by — one of their prophet’s purported core messages — to love one another, to love your neighbor as yourself, etc.?

Add to that pantheon of hypocrites and obfuscators the officially disgraced Reverend Gordon Klingenschmitt, a.k.a. “Dr. Chaps.”

Whoops, sorry, wrong picture.

They’re easy to confuse, because “Dr. Chaps” is obsessed with gay sex. He’s infamous for (falsely) claiming that Justice Anthony Kennedy called Jesus “evil” and the Holy Spirit “a demon” after Kennedy wrote a majority opinion in the ruling that gutted government discrimination of same-sex couples.

Right Wing Watch explains what Klingenschmitt pulled the other day:

On his most recent “Pray In Jesus Name” program, “Dr. Chaps” Gordon Klingenschmitt added his voice to the never-ending Religious Right outrage over a proposed San Antonio anti-discrimination ordinance that would supposedly ban Christians for serving in public office or in any way working for the city. It is all nonsense, of course, but that didn’t stop Chaps from attacking the proposal by saying that gays should be discriminated against … and citing Martin Luther King to prove it.

It’s priceless to see Klingenschmitt spin his interpretation of Dr. King’s words, at some point (0:58) confusing himself with his up-is-down convoluted mess of an argument. This is what he ends up squeaking out:

“When these confusing statutes now try to redefine ‘discrimination,’ and say that you can no longer discriminate against character, that anyone who discriminates against character is guilty of discrimination and therefore ought to be discriminated against, they’re actually saying Martin Luther King himself ought to be punished for his views, and that’s not right.”

Watch:

In case you’re wondering if Martin Luther King, Jr. really thought that gay people should be judged and discriminated against, consider that one of his friends and longtime allies was Bayard Rustin, the chief organizer of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom at which King gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

Rustin was an openly-gay black man, and a life-long fighter of anti-gay bias.

Case closed.

About Terry Firma

Terry Firma, though born and Journalism-school-educated in Europe, has lived in the U.S. for the past 20-odd years. Stateside, his feature articles have been published in the New York Times, Reason, Rolling Stone, Playboy, and Wired. Terry is the founder and Main Mischief Maker of Moral Compass, a site that pokes fun at the delusional claim by people of faith that a belief in God equips them with superior moral standards.

  • flyb

    He protests a bit too much.

  • Tainda

    “that anyone who discriminates against character is guilty of discrimination and therefore ought to be discriminated against” Wow, what a sentence!

    Does he really go by Dr. Chaps? That’s just kinky!

  • Rain

    I see he has a number to call “For prayer”. I don’t think I need to say any more. Wouldn’t want to belabor the obvious.

  • LesterBallard

    KIng may have. If so, he was wrong.

    • Ewan

      Well quite. This is like some sort of reverse Godwin – not “It’s bad because Hitler”, but “It’s OK because Martin Luther King”. Even if the were true, it would still be a rubbish argument.

  • DougI

    Cause a guy who tries to dress like one of the Village People is one who should criticize gays.

    • UWIR

      You do realize that that picture was a joke, don’t you?

  • Gus Snarp

    I’d say that we should be able to discriminate based on character. I just don’t understand what that has to do with sexual orientation. I’m pretty sure every gay person I’ve ever met has better character than “Dr. Chaps”, and I know enough gay people that they are not of uniformly good character.

    Also, why is he called “Dr. Chaps”?

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Slime like Klingenschmitt are conflating character with orientation. That’s the issue.

      • Gus Snarp

        Well, right. That’s sort of my point. Was I too abstruse?

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Maybe it was me. But then, I’m a Furry. We’re pretty messed up.

    • Mario Strada

      Cracked lips maybe?

  • onamission5

    Even highly admirable people can have wrong views. Doing good in one or more arenas of your life doesn’t necessarily preclude making mistakes in other arenas. That said…

    I’ll believe that MLK Jr. hated LGBT people when I hear (read) those words from his own mouth and see that attitude reflected in his own (past) actions. His speech about judging people by their character? You have to stretch those words into nonsense to make them fit the way Rev. Klingenschmitt does. You have to first believe A) sexual orientation says something about a person’s character B) that something is negative and C) that sexual orientation was what MLK was referring to. It isn’t. He was talking about the way people treat each other, he was talking about *people like Rev. Klingenschmitt* who twist positive messages to fit their personal bias, who promote discrimination, whether passively or actively.

    • Mario Strada

      In addition, why should we judge MLK beliefs while denying him the moral growth we as a society underwent in the meantime?

      MLK probably grew up in the same society we did where gays were the butt of jokes and pariahs to pity at best and despise at worse.

      We have come a long ways since then. MLK was negated this personal growth by the bullet of an assassin. We cannot judge what he would think today without the benefit of walking together with society on the same journey.

  • Frank

    As a Baptist minister MLK would have believed that homosexual behavior was sinful.

    (CNN)– Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony magazine when he received an unusual letter.

    “I am a boy,” an anonymous writer told King. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

    In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required “careful attention.”

    “The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

    Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father’s graveside in 2005 while calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. She was joined by Bishop Eddie Long, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Church in Georgia, where she served as an elder at the time. Long, who recently settled out of court with four young men who filed lawsuits claiming he coerced them into sexual relationships, publicly condemned homosexuality.

    King did not answer an interview request, but she has spoken publicly about her views.

    During a speech at a church meeting in New Zealand, she said her father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

    Case closed.

    • Oranje

      From the same exact religion blog post at CNN you’re (badly) quoting:

      Rev. C.T. Vivian, who worked with King at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, says King would have championed gay rights today.

      “Martin was a theologian,” Vivian says. “Martin starts with the fact that God loves everybody, and all men and all women were created by God. He based his whole philosophy on God’s love for all people.”

      Ray Comfort would be proud of the way you truncated that article, though.

      • Oranje
      • Frank

        So someone else words tell us better than MLKs actual words? I mean why let facts get in the way of your beliefs.

        • Oranje

          I was adding some of the things Frank left out. In the original post, Bernice King’s beliefs about her father are shown to be more isolated. Not really sure what you’re after here.

          • Frank

            I am after the truth. MLK believed homosexual behavior was a sin and homosexual feelings are a problem.

            • Oranje

              That’s not a point I’m arguing one way or another. Frank’s truncating of the blog post, however, shows an image of the issue that is not accurate. Cherry-picking like that doesn’t help anyone’s case.

              • Frank

                MLKs words are the most important point and are clear.

                • Oranje

                  Then why not only include those? The way you included CNN’s byline, then gave Bernice King a central role that wasn’t in the original, implies that you were employing some rather nasty rhetorical tricks. Had you not done that, then a discussion about whether he would still hold those feelings today would be in order.

                • Frank

                  I thought it was an interesting perspective just like someone else quoted his wife.

                  It funny how MLK’s words are ignored in favor of some misguided attempt at “correcting” me. Very telling. Very telling indeed.

                • Oranje

                  You’re right. I am misguided. You aren’t going to stop quote-mining and thinking that cherry-picking like that puts you in the right and proves your point. Good luck with that. Bye.

                • Frank

                  Still avoiding the fact of MLK’s words I see.

                  Thanks for the confirmation.

                • Oranje

                  Still avoiding the fact that I wasn’t arguing with you about that, but about how you treated your source and bastardized the original text, I see.

                  Thanks for that confirmation. So long, Frank. I hope you’ve had your fun.

                • baal

                  7th!

                • phantomreader42

                  Still bearing false witness, as always Frank. Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with that?

                • Frank

                  I have only spoken truth.

                • baal

                  6th!

                • baal

                  This is the 5th time you’ve repeated yourself instead of dealing with the substance of the quote mining accusation.

                • Frank

                  I already did. Try and keep up please.

                • baal

                  Repeating yourself is not dealing.

        • Oranje

          And Disqus threw another fit on me. Hi, Frank. Someone else’s name was on your comments. I don’t think you’re being fair to the issue with the way you edited that blog post. We could say a sizable chunk of the American public was against homosexuality in the very recent past. We’ve grown, though, since then. We understand more. To use MLK as a perpetual stalwart against homosexuality isn’t fair, and the way you presented it was dishonest.

          • Frank

            I was simply responding to the articles fallacious post with actual facts.

            • Oranje

              By misrepresenting a source in a way where I would flunk a first-year composition student? If you wanted to throw in his response, I’d see your point. But giving Bernice King prominence outside of what the article YOU CITED presents is mendacious.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              You were quote-mining, also known as “lying”. Enjoy explaining to Jesus why you have to lie to have anything to say.

              • Frank

                MLK’s words on this issue are a fact.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Your quote-mining and then lying to cover it up is far better documented than MLK’s opinions on homosexuality.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              You’re lying about this blog post.

              Funny how you have nothing bad to say about Chaps’s lying about MLK. Does Jesus love that you’re a hypocrite who protects liars, Frank?

              • Frank

                I don’t know Mr Chaps nor am I defending him. l am simply pointing out the fallacy and foolishness of the “case closed” comment.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Yes, you are defending Klingenschmitt. You saw an article showing him being dishonest, and, instead of being bothered that he was lying, decided to lie by quote-mining in order to cover for him because you felt your tribe was under attack. Deal, sinner.

                • Frank

                  Attack? You have no power to attack.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  It’s a metaphor. Try to keep up with how English works, sugarcube.

                • RobMcCune

                  Klingenschmitt lied, case closed. MLK didn’t discriminate against gay people or advocate it, unlike what the person you’re defending asserted. Your quote does nothing to bolster Klingenschmitt’s lie since it does not advocate discrimination.

                • skinnercitycyclist

                  “I don’t know Mr Chaps nor am I defending him.”

                  It’s DOCTOR Chaps to you, mister.

    • observer

      A couple of quotes from Coretta Scott King, MLK Jr.’s wife:

      “I support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994 because I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ On another occasion he said, ‘I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.’ Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.
      So I see this bill as a step forward for freedom and human rights in our country and a logical extension of the Bill of Rights and the civil rights reforms of the 1950s and ’60′s.
      The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice. I believe that this legislation will provide protection to a large group of working people, who have suffered persecution and discrimination for many years. To this endeavor, I pledge my wholehearted support.”

      “I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”

    • OverlappingMagisteria

      I seems silly to me to use the opinions of MLK’s daughter or of his wife as if they were indicative of his own. Individuals have their own view on matters regardless of their familial ties (consider Nate Phelps, atheist son of Fred Phelps). Although Coretta Scott King and Bernice King do have opposing views on gay rights today, today is a very different cultural climate than 1968 in regards to gay rights.

      What did MLK think about gay rights? I think the best answer can be quoted from the CNN article linked by Oranje: “The author of both books says King’s stance on gay rights is unclear…” People arguing that he was in support of gay-rights point mostly to assumptions that they are making about his theology. However, he was largely silent on the topic.

      I think that both sides make the mistake of deifying MLK and trying to use his legacy in support of their view. MLK was certainly a great man, but we don’t really know what he would’ve wanted for gay rights and frankly, it doesn’t matter. The assumed opinions of someone of yesterday, be it MLK, George Washington, or Jesus Christ do not matter to the people of today. Gay rights do not stand or fall on the assumed view of MLK no more than does slavery on the views of Washington, or the golden rule on the views of Jesus. They stand or fall on their own merits. And though we may certainly use the knowledge of past thinkers, it is absurd to try to hoist our views onto their legacies as if that gives them justification.

      TLDR: We don’t know MLK’s stance on gay issues so stop trying to use him as support for your side of the debate.

      • Frank

        We do know what he thought by his own words.

        (CNN)– Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony magazine when he received an unusual letter.

        “I am a boy,” an anonymous writer told King. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

        In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required “careful attention.”

        “The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

        We know he thought it was a “problem.”

        • OverlappingMagisteria

          Yes… in 1958. Then he hangs out with openly-gay Bayard Rustin and says nothing about gay-rights ever again. Did his view change? Maybe, maybe not.

          But the point is, so what? MLK was not a god and we have no obligation to worship his moral positions.

          • Frank

            I agree with you. MLK was just a man with his beliefs.

            Jesus hung out with sinners too but was against the sin.

            • Carmelita Spats

              Jesus was against the sin? Mmmmm, let’s take a look at sexy John 13:23, “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.” The phrase “disciple whom Jesus loved” appears five times in the Gospel of John. That’s hot until you realize that it’s the image of flip-flop wearing peripatetic philosopher hauling his catamite around in which case Jesus needed to be registered as a sex offender…Jesus *loved* to hang out with sinners. Go sexy Jesus!

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              I’m sure you can find the parts in the Bible where Jesus told those thieves and prostitutes off. Must be hidden somewhere in all that stuff about doing well by them and not judging them… which of course is the opposite of that “hate the sin” thing.

              Not that you’d understand that. Quote-miners aren’t able to grasp complete sentences or read without ignoring important details.

            • Ibis3

              Who gives a fuck what Jesus was said to have done? Even if *he* were just a man with his (accurately recorded) beliefs rather than a legendary figure who had sayings and doings ascribed to him decades after he was dead and buried, his beliefs merit no more consideration than any one else’s.

              • Frank

                Tell that to His 2 billion and growing followers.

                You can’t stop the truth but be sure to waste your time trying.

                • baal

                  It’s not clear that the number is growing, please provide a non-RCC source thatshows it. Last i heard, the RCC in Germany, for example, wasn’t processing “take me off your rolls” notices.

                • RobMcCune

                  So then why do you spend so much time trying to stop the truth here?

                • Frank

                  What truth? Still looking for it here.

                • Carpinions

                  2 billion out of 7, ergo not even close to half the world. Islam claims 1.5 billion. Both of you together can barely manage 3.5. You got a long way to go if you think you’re going to win this by sheer numbers, especially since only Mormonism and Islam are *actually* growing in real terms, and the next group is undecideds.

                  And, btw, that’s only 2 billion after having a 2 millennia head start coupled with indoctrination either by government or cultural and hereditary force. Your savior’s words are so great that well less than half the current population of the Earth puts any stock in them. Never mind the additional fact that you guys count all the jack-whatevers (lazy irregular church attendees) in your numbers so you can reach that 2 billion mark.

                  There is no way to win the numbers argument in real terms, and there is no way you’re walking out of here in triumph manufacturing lies about MLK Jr. You picked the wrong audience. If you don’t want to be labeled a rat, stop acting like one.

            • Edmond

              Why on EARTH would it be a “sin” for consenting adults who feel only same-sex attraction to find happiness and companionship in each other? How could this be viewed as some sort of “crime”, justifiably punishable by eternal burning? It seems to me that anyone who calls for this kind of harsh censure of loving, free citizens is the one committing a crime.

        • TurelieTelcontar

          Yet he doesn’t react with disgust or extreme judgement. It seems to me more like he is unsure about the topic, and gicing a – for the time – diplomatic answer.

          The article was written 9 years before his death, so he could have changed his opinions. Also, perhaps he would have changed his opinions the more it became obvious that it is “an innate tendency”.
          And, some people can have admirable views in one area of their lives, and bad ones in others.

          • Frank

            I agree he reacted like Christians should react. With love and compassion but not claiming its not a problem.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Again, you edited out the large sections of the article that refute your claims.

          And again, congratulations Frank. You are now a quote-mining liar, and will henceforth be treated as one, you shitty, dishonest man. Jesus must be so proud of you today.

          • Frank

            Mlk’s words are the important part. try and keep up!

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              See above, and again, good luck explaining to Jesus how you had to lie a second time to cover up the first lie and protect your ego. He’s all about big egos, right?

            • Mario Strada

              Frank, are you a priest? I seem to recognize the prideful and demeaning prose from a blog I read from time to time when I need to remind myself why I fight against the imposition of a state religion.
              Probably I am just mistaken.

            • Carpinions

              Denial is a serious mental condition. Seek help.

        • Ibis3

          In 1958. What he thought later in his life, say after working closely with Bayard Rustin for several more years, is unclear. People can change their minds, and a personal relationship with someone who’s gay has been known to change a person’s opinion. Moreover, what his position might have been today had he lived is anyone’s guess. As OverlappingMagesteria was trying to point out, using a dead person’s views to defend your own is pointless. They were a product of their age and upbringing, and there’s no justification for holding the same opinions without reserve.

          • cary_w

            People can change their minds. Yup, just like all those republican who suddenly start supporting gay rights when then find out a beloved family member is gay. Funny how having a gay child does that to you!

        • skinnercitycyclist

          My overarching reaction is “Who cares what MLK thought about marriage equality?” He is dead and out of the discussion. He may have been a closeted, self-loathing gay man himself and still been against equality. Thomas Jefferson was a great political thinker whom we should all respect, but his views on slavery and race were wrong. Appeal to authority=stupid.

          Oh, and reading Frank’s comments=stupid, too

      • Mario Strada

        We also cannot think of a person ideology as static. Would MLK be in favor of gay rights today? Probably yes, given that far more bigoted people have come around to realize that hatred of gays is unjust and no different than hatred of any other group. But his own convictions remain crystallized in the past.

        MLK was a product of his times. Speculating what he would have done today, had he lived (to a very ripe old age) is not productive, but we can take his words on racial discrimination and apply them to other underclasses.

        Just like we take the words of our founding fathers that “all men are created equal”, something they didn’t really believe in, and make them our own expanding the original meaning to fit our times.

        Our founding father believed that “All white landowners” are created equal. It would have been preposterous for many of them to be considered equal to a black man or to a Borneo “savage”.

        However, they wisely did not write their message in the way they understood it. Did they know that society would take their words and infuse them of a greater meaning? Were they aware that societies, on a grand scale, move from barbarism toward enlightenment?

        I think at least some of them did and I think they were smart enough to know that their own limitations should not be imposed on future societies.

        If MLK was pro or against gays is really immaterial. His words were against discrimination. The one he knew was discrimination against the color of one’s skin. As his ideological children we must liberate his words and apply them to all forms of discrimination. Especially since MLK own fight is still very far from over.

        • Spazticus

          Well said.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      You conveniently edited out the large sections of the article that refute your claims.

      Congratulations Frank, you are now a quote-mining liar, and will henceforth be treated as one, you shitty, dishonest man. Jesus must be so proud of you today.

      • Frank

        MLKs words are the important part. Try and keep up.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          If you were only going for MLK’s words, you wouldn’t have included his daughter’s part of the article while editing out the stuff between and after them

          You’re a quote-mining liar, Frank, and are now trying to cover for it. Good luck explaining to Jesus why you don’t think that honesty is important enough to you for you to even cop to a mistake. So much for your belief in Him. I’m more of a Christian than you are.

    • Carpinions

      “Case closed.”

      If by “case” you mean “stupid argument”, then yes, it’s closed. I don’t care what MLK Jr. thought or didn’t think of homosexuality, because he’s (unfortunately by artificial means) dead. If he railed against gays in the 60s while talking about equality for the black community, he still would have been wrong on that point. He’d be wrong about it if he said such things today.

      He and anyone else ever, who labeled homosexuality as evil and a choice and etc. etc. etc. would be, have been, and are wrong about it, then, now, and in the future, period.

      If you continue to fail to understand this simple point, that is your choice, and we will judge your character accordingly. It is child’s play to see the profligate errancy of the arguments against homosexuality, and one of the greatest follies to continue to act as if the responses lodged in opposition have not satisfied them.

      Good day.

  • Smiles

    Discriminate: “To make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.” -via Webster’s

    I am beginning to think that word doesn’t mean what he thinks it means…

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Interpreting MLK’s famous quotation about the “content of their character,” Chaps says,

    In other words, it doesn’t matter what your skin color is, it matters what’s in your heart.

    This is an essential impasse between Christians and atheists, the difference between what defines “character.”

    Christians think your character is indicated by what you think, by the thoughts, beliefs, and desires that occur between your ears. To them, thoughts are not just as important as actions (as in fantasizing about adultery is just as bad as actually doing it), thoughts are more important than actions (as in belief in Jesus is the only way one gets to heaven, not a lifetime of loving actions).

    To me, and I think many atheists share my view, your character is defined by the consistent pattern of your actions, specifically actions that affect others. Are your behaviors considerate or thoughtless, respectful or disdainful, kind or cruel, forthright or deceitful, generous or selfish, and so forth.

    Sitting still, alone in an empty room thinking all sorts of thoughts, good, bad, pious, lustful, loving, hateful, whatever, does not define your character. You must actually go out into the world and interact with it, with living things, with other people, and the consistent pattern of your interactions that emerges over time is the “content of your character.”

  • L.Long

    So MLK hated gays?? SO WHAT!!!
    I love how we want ‘THEM’ on our side and they want ‘THEM’ on their side.
    ‘THEM’ being MLK – Founding fathers – who-ever???

    Just cuz MLK was right about civil rights for non-white does not mean he was right about other stuff.
    Is discrimination without cause right? Wrong? that’s all that counts. What dead people thought ‘back then’ is silly as you can show most anything by picking the right quotes or vague assumptions. Ya it would be nice if MLK would be on the gay side, but he’s not here now so what does it matter.

  • Infidel Poetry

    “The most dangerous type of atheism is not theoretical atheism, but practical atheism—that’s the most dangerous type.”
    —Martin Luther King Jr (1954 speech)

    I agree with OverlappingMagisteria’s comment:

    “I think that both sides make the mistake of deifying MLK and trying to use his legacy in support of their view.”

  • SeekerLancer

    Even if it were somehow undeniably true that Martin Luther King Jr. would have discriminated against gays, my response would be, “so what?” Because you’re on the right side of one issue doesn’t mean you’re not on the wrong side of another.

  • Miss_Beara

    When the issue of gun control came up months ago, Fox News said Martin Luther King would not be in favor of gun control. How would they know this? Who knows. I do agree with the comment somewhere below mine that said that this is a reverse Godwin. Say MLK would be for or against something, then that view would have to be correct, even if they cannot give a reason why he would be for or against said thing.

  • UWIR

    This guy doesn’t even know there’s supposed to be an apostrophe after “Jesus”?

    And note to Terry: “on-camera” is an adjectival phrase, e.g. “on-camera interview”. Since you’re using as a prepositional phrase, it should be two words, no hyphen.

  • Carpinions

    I vote that the US start a Reparations fund that will force closet racists, sheisters, and the GOP to contribute a dime every time MLK Jr. is misused to make a terrible point or justify bigoted behavior. All those Reparations conservatives fear from the black community could be paid for within a couple years at this rate.

  • Nos Rob

    Coretta Scott King seems to think MLK’s principles extended to LGBT people: “I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.” (source: Wikipedia)

  • ShoeUnited

    He’s saying it’s ok to discriminate based on character? Fine then, I’ll discriminate against Rev. Klingenklangingschmittersvenjensen for the character he portrays.

  • cary_w

    WTF? That has got to be the weirdest interpretation of MLK I have ever seen.

    1. He was talking about racism. Anyone who’s not a clueless asshole should be able to tell that he meant people should be judged on whether they are clueless assholes or not, rather than the color of their skin.

    2. Who the hell cares if he was homophobic or not? That’s not the cause he was working on. No one has the time to be an activist for everything. We all choose our battles and focus our efforts where we think we can do the most good.

    3. Where did this idea come from, that someone who does something great loses all credibility if they ever did anything at all that wasn’t great? It’s insane, why do people expect their heroes to be perfect saints all the time? We are all human, we are all bound to be wrong sometimes.

    Holy crap, I’m going to have to stop reading this blog, reading this shit day after day is driving me to swear, which really isn’t in my nature, I just can’t help myself!

  • Phil

    Pushy bottom. A couple of sessions with a ball gag and heavy leather strap would change his tune and adjust his attitude. Punishment is what’s needed!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X