• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FLASHBACK: When Megyn Kelly Thought A "Religious Freedom" Law Was "Potentially Danger

pbrauer said:
Yes, Megyn Kelly speaks out of both sides of her mouth.

FLASHBACK: When Megyn Kelly Thought A "Religious Freedom" Law Was "Potentially Dangerous"

FLASHBACK: When Megyn Kelly Thought A "Religious Freedom" Law Was "Potentially Dangerous" | Blog | Media Matters for America

Megyn Kelly has become one of the most vocal defenders of Indiana's controversial "religious freedom" law on Fox News, dismissing concerns that the law might be used to discriminate against LGBT people. But in 2014, she decried an almost identical "religious freedom" law in Arizona, calling it "potentially dangerous."

In February of 2014, one state was embroiled in a debate over a "religious freedom" law that had earned national attention. LGBT groups, the business community, and even sports organizations had spoken out against the law, warning that it could be used to discriminate against LGBT customers.

That state was Arizona, which had passed SB 1062, a measure that gave individuals and business owners a legal defense for refusing to serve LGBT customers if doing so violated their religious beliefs.

At the time, even Fox's Megyn Kelly seemed uncomfortable with the measure, which was passed with the explicit purpose of allowing business to refuse to serve same-sex weddings. During the February 25 edition of The Kelly File, Kelly invited Fox senior political analyst Brit Hume on to her show to discuss the "controversial" law, which she called "an overreaction" and "potentially dangerous," warning that it could be used to deny medical service to LGBT people:

HUME: This bill, according to its critics, would go much farther than that. It would basically allow businesses generally to refuse to sell or to provide services to a gay couple, anyone who is gay, if they could -

KELLY: Even medical services.

HUME: Even medical services, perhaps, to someone on the basis of the fact that they are homosexual and their religion forbids homosexuality and therefore they're sincere about it... It seems to me that's an order of magnitude greater than the legal right to deny services to a gay wedding.

[...]

KELLY: I look at this bill and I wonder whether this is a reaction, an overreaction, to people who feel under attack on this score. And in the end, they may have struck back in a way that's deeply offensive to many and potentially dangerous to folks who are gay and lesbians and need medical services and other services being denied potentially.
.​
Click to expand...

Another Media Matters hatchet job. Anybody who actually WATCHES Megyn Kelly knows that she questions EVERYTHING, even when she agrees with it.
 
Wiggen said:
Her looks aren't that remarkable. Every single woman on Fox looks like her. They go big time for the blonde, Aryan look.
Click to expand...

She's married and has at least one kid. Nothing like knowing your subject matter, is there?
 
pbrauer said:
If you think I was fooled, you should read the damned OP.
Click to expand...

I didn't need to read the OP, I saw the segment, it was her typical lawyer like cross examination.
 
PeteEU said:
Still blond with big boobs.. like most female anchors on Fox :)
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing. Actually, I think Megyn is a little on the skinny side.
 
it's just me said:
You say that like it's a bad thing. Actually, I think Megyn is a little on the skinny side.
Click to expand...

Well they could diversify a tad.. There are quite a few "hot" non blonds out there and it is not like Rupert Murdoch does not have them in stock. He can just raid Sky Sports News in the UK.
 
PeteEU said:
Well they could diversify a tad.. There are quite a few "hot" non blonds out there and it is not like Rupert Murdoch does not have them in stock. He can just raid Sky Sports News in the UK.
Click to expand...

Well, there's Andrea Tantaros, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Joann Nosuchinsky (yes, that's her name), and Jedediah Bila, who shows up from time to time.

Jed-1-copy.jpgjoanne.jpgkim.jpgTantaros.jpg
 
pbrauer said:
If you think I was fooled, you should read the damned OP.
Click to expand...

The very first words in your op are "Yes, Megyn Kelly speaks out of both sides of her mouth."

You were duped AGAIN, just like you will be the next time and the time after that. You'll never learn because they feed you exactly what you want to believe.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Calling out a specific female doesn't mean he hates all of them. Nothing like a con to make shiit up. Kind of like tricky dicky and president moron.
Click to expand...

And in comes the "liberal" to defend it.
 
Grim17 said:
The very first words in your op are "Yes, Megyn Kelly speaks out of both sides of her mouth."

You were duped AGAIN, just like you will be the next time and the time after that. You'll never learn because they feed you exactly what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

The bill that Pence signed and the bill Brewer vetoed were virtually the same. Yes, Kelly speaks out of both sides of her mouth. Let's not forget that when the Arizona bill was discussed by Kelly Brewer was expected to veto the bill, so it was a natural that Kelly would poo poo it.
 
Wiggen said:
No, I just read her idiocy on this forum. It's all I need to do. Unlike you folks on the right, who can't get enough of those blonde fox bimbos.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, bald face lie. As for those blonde bimbos most all on FOX are attorneys including Megen Kelly and I would not even suggest how much money she and the others make being that blond bimbo. I wonder who the real bimbo is here.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
They've duped you again Pete. Why do you continue to allow Media Matter to make a fool of you over and over and over again?

Megyn Kelly labeled an Arizona law "potentially dangerous" because it apparently would have legalized discrimination, by allowing a business owner to refuse service to gays and lesbians (and anyone else), which potentially could have included the denial of medical treatment... all under the umbrella of religious freedom. The Indiana bill is not the same as the Arizona bill that Governor Brewer vetoed.

Did you even bother to watch the segment Pete, and if so, why didn't you pay attention to it?

Kelly, being a former attorney, saw potential danger in a badly written, discriminatory bill in Arizona that was ultimately vetoed by Jan Brewer. The Indiana law does not legalize discrimination like the Arizona law would have, so there is nothing contradictory about the views she expressed...

I can't believe there are so many gullible people around here still buying into the phony propaganda manufactured by those dishonest hacks at Media Matters. LMMFAO
Click to expand...
Except the discrimination Megyn Kelly claimed to be so concerned over is already legal in both Arizona and Indiana because neither have statewide anti-discrimination laws that protect sexual orientation and gender identity. In essence the laws in both states would have changed nothing as to how the LGBT community would have been treated.

When Kelly and Hume discussed the Arizona bill it was in response to fears from social conservatives that a religious business owners might have to do work for a gay marriage similar to the situation in New Mexico, and later cases in Colorado and Oregon. The very significant difference is those three states have statewide bans on private businesses discriminating based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. So the theoretical situation Arizona lawmakers were so fearful of is almost impossible to duplicate except in a handful of areas.

If one watches her discussing the Indiana law many of the things that she was concerned about during the Arizona controversy are possible outcomes, but instead she writes off most of those concerns or outright ignores them. So yes, on her part, this is a clear flip flop.

Also, given the recent concerns about religious freedom at Fox News I do not understand their objection that someone might be discriminated against and denied medical treatment because of their orientation or identity. Either be for it "religious" freedom in all situations or none.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
Except the discrimination Megyn Kelly claimed to be so concerned over is already legal in both Arizona and Indiana because neither have statewide anti-discrimination laws that protect sexual orientation and gender identity. In essence the laws in both states would have changed nothing as to how the LGBT community would have been treated.

When Kelly and Hume discussed the Arizona bill it was in response to fears from social conservatives that a religious business owners might have to do work for a gay marriage similar to the situation in New Mexico, and later cases in Colorado and Oregon. The very significant difference is those three states have statewide bans on private businesses discriminating based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. So the theoretical situation Arizona lawmakers were so fearful of is almost impossible to duplicate except in a handful of areas.

If one watches her discussing the Indiana law many of the things that she was concerned about during the Arizona controversy are possible outcomes, but instead she writes off most of those concerns or outright ignores them. So yes, on her part, this is a clear flip flop.

Also, given the recent concerns about religious freedom at Fox News I do not understand their objection that someone might be discriminated against and denied medical treatment because of their orientation or identity. Either be for it "religious" freedom in all situations or none.
Click to expand...

You obviously weren't paying attention to their objections.
 
Grim17 said:
Since you chimed in with an "addaboy" on the first page, I fully expected you to toss in an off-topic insult to direct the conversation elsewhere... The only other alternatives you had were to either acknowledge that the MM story and this thread were based on dishonesty and false pretences (which I knew you would never do), or not say a word, disappear and pretend you never contributed to the dishonesty this thread is based upon...

Knowing you as well as I do, I went with the odds and you didn't disappoint.
Click to expand...

You can dish it out but you can't take it. You don't disappoint either.
 
Wiggen said:
Megyn Kelly is a hypocritical bitch who doesn't have a clue. Who woulda thought?:lamo
Click to expand...

Care to match her IQ? I would not ask to match her character as that would be a waste of time would it not?
 
rocket88 said:
You can dish it out but you can't take it. You don't disappoint either.
Click to expand...

Again, you had the same choices:

a) Acknowledge that the MM story and this thread were based on dishonesty and false pretences (which you would never do)
b) Don't say a word, disappear and pretend you never contributed to the dishonesty this thread is based upon...
c) Post an off-topic insult to direct the conversation elsewhere, so you don't have to acknowledge you bought into the phony story.

Of course you again did exactly what I predicted and doubled down with another off-topic insult. You know, honesty isn't something to fear, it's actually a good thing.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
Except the discrimination Megyn Kelly claimed to be so concerned over is already legal in both Arizona and Indiana because neither have statewide anti-discrimination laws that protect sexual orientation and gender identity. In essence the laws in both states would have changed nothing as to how the LGBT community would have been treated.

When Kelly and Hume discussed the Arizona bill it was in response to fears from social conservatives that a religious business owners might have to do work for a gay marriage similar to the situation in New Mexico, and later cases in Colorado and Oregon. The very significant difference is those three states have statewide bans on private businesses discriminating based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. So the theoretical situation Arizona lawmakers were so fearful of is almost impossible to duplicate except in a handful of areas.

If one watches her discussing the Indiana law many of the things that she was concerned about during the Arizona controversy are possible outcomes, but instead she writes off most of those concerns or outright ignores them. So yes, on her part, this is a clear flip flop.

Also, given the recent concerns about religious freedom at Fox News I do not understand their objection that someone might be discriminated against and denied medical treatment because of their orientation or identity. Either be for it "religious" freedom in all situations or none.
Click to expand...

Great post, it's clear Megyn was against the Arizona bill because Brewer was expected to veto it and was for indiana law because Pence had already signed the bill.
 
pbrauer said:
Great post, it's clear Megyn was against the Arizona bill because Brewer was expected to veto it and was for indiana law because Pence had already signed the bill.
Click to expand...

At least you are consistent... Every time you are made a fool of for buying into a Media Matters lie, just as you have done in this case, we can count on you to never under any circumstances acknowledge it was a lie, and instead to keep spinning it over and over again, for as many day as it takes until people realize you are impervious to the truth and they stop wasting their time.

It was another Media Matters lie Pete and it would be nice if every once in a while you'd just accept it, instead of spending days spinning their BS and playing the fool. Show a little dignity and self respect for Christ's sake, because it really is painful to watch you do this over and over again, day in and day out.
 
rhinefire said:
Care to match her IQ? I would not ask to match her character as that would be a waste of time would it not?
Click to expand...

I'll match both with that blonde bimbo. And with you.
 
Born Free said:
Yeah right, bald face lie. As for those blonde bimbos most all on FOX are attorneys including Megen Kelly and I would not even suggest how much money she and the others make being that blond bimbo. I wonder who the real bimbo is here.
Click to expand...

I believe you are calling me a liar. I think that's a violation of forum rules. But then again, you are a Far Right extremist, so it's par for the course for you. And 'blonde' is spelled with an 'e' at the end. Just for future reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom