RUSH: Here’s Bill Donohue on CNN’s “New Day” today with the host, Chris Cuomo, and they’re discussing Jan Brewer’s veto of the Arizona bill.
Cuomo said, “Why do you believe that Arizona needed this law?”
DONOHUE: People of faith, whatever faith you may be, are fed up with the idea — starting with this federal government with the Obama administration — when it comes to matters sexual, abortion or same-sex marriage are basically pushing gay rights, encroaching on the rights of people of faith. Whether it’s denial in Illinois and Massachusetts about adoption for the Catholic Church, Catholic Charities. We have an attorney general who tells the state’s attorneys general, “Don’t even bother enforcing the laws when it comes to marriage.” Look, gays as individuals, I’m with you on that. Let’s protect them in the workplace. Let’s protect them as individuals. What my concern is, and I think I speak for a lot of people of faith, is the institution of marriage. That’s a separate issue altogether.
RUSH: No, it’s not. Not anymore. No, no, no. It’s not a separate issue. It’s whatever the left wants it to be now. – Chris Cuomo then said, “Are you aware, Mr. Donohue, that in Arizona the LGBT community is not a protected class? Are you aware of that?”
DONOHUE: As a matter of fact, I don’t even believe it. Quite frankly, we’ve had this RFRA law, Religious Freedom Restoration Act since 1997 at the federal level. Where are the examples of gays being discriminated against? If they’re so discriminated against, how come they make more money that than straight people, on average? Is somebody being denied in Appleby’s getting a hamburger? Where are these examples? Can you enumerate for me examples of gay people in Arizona who are having their rights violated by people of faith?
RUSH: Duh. Dead silence. Again, not the point. Gay people don’t have to have their rights violated by people of faith in Arizona because the left thinks that the people of faith in Arizona would if they could discriminate, because they’ve already made up their minds that they are bigots and homophobes because they are Republicans. So it doesn’t matter that there isn’t any evidence of discrimination. All that matters is the left knows they’re thinking about it.
RUSH: This is Justin in West Covina, California. Hi. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, thank you, Rush. I just wanted to say that I don’t understand why people would think that it’s going to stop at the unfortunate couple that did not want to take photographs of the gay wedding.
RUSH: Wait. Wait just a second.
RUSH: I want to understand. You want to say you don’t understand why people would think it’s gonna stop at the…? Oh. Oh. Yeah. Like this is not the solution to anything? This is just the beginning of new problems, right?
CALLER: Yes. Meaning that I believe that ultimately they are going to go into the churches, demand to be married in a given church, and when they’re told no because of the religious grounds, then they will turn around and sue the church, attempting to strip the church of the tax-exempt status — which, of course, will force the church to disappear. So the leaders will either have to get in line, all religious people either get in line or, you know, your church itself ultimately will be pushed out of the marketplace — or not marketplace, but pushed out of society as a whole.
RUSH: Let me ask you a question, Justin.
RUSH: In Arizona, what was it, even? Was it baking a cake? A baker refused to make cake for a gay couple, and there was one other instance and so that became Arizona’s problem?
CALLER: Yeah, I was referring to the couple in Utah, the photography company.
CALLER: Because I don’t believe that it is about the idea that they can exist as a couple and have all of the rights that they want to have. I believe that the idea is that everyone must accept them and must agree to whatever terms that they want. Meaning: The belief that they are the same, to believe that religiously it is acceptable, everyone must accept their lifestyle. I don’t believe that they will allow any exceptions to that as far as their perspective and their movement.
RUSH: So you think that ultimately they’re going to want to just basically destroy the church.
CALLER: That is correct. Yes. Religion as a… I don’t believe that they will destroy religion. It is that if the religious groups or the church do not accept them, do not agree to marry them, do not agree that they are the same as a heterosexual couple in their eyes, then, yes. All of those people, all of those groups — businesses, churches — are to be wiped out of existence.
RUSH: Well, you are describing political activists.
CALLER: That is correct, yes, which is exactly what they are, what I believe them to be.
RUSH: But, no. We’re told they’re people that love and have sex with each other and just want to be able to live peacefully without being hassled. But you’re describing people that want to go in and tear down institution after institution that might make them feel threatened or something. That’s what political activists do.
CALLER: Yeah, and if what you said is true — the projection being portrayed by the media that they just want to live happily and be with each other — then they could create their own churches and marry away as much as they would like in all of the places where that can be done, and there would be nothing to stop them, and the confrontation could be avoided entirely with religious groups that don’t accept them.
RUSH: But you’re saying they want the confrontation.
CALLER: That is precisely what they want. They want the confrontation with anyone that doesn’t agree with what they want, which is why it’s a political movement, not just being together and being alone to do what they see fit in their personal lives.
RUSH: Why do they care? So there’s the Church of the Our Lady of the Miraculous Interstate. Why do they care if the Church of Our Lady of the Miraculous Interstate doesn’t like gay marriage? What do they care?
CALLER: Well, that… (laughing) That stands in a violation of their own personal belief system. To say that you don’t accept their relationship as within your faith or your religion is unacceptable. You can’t have anyone because that would be what they would call discrimination, correct? You’re discriminating against them because you’re refusing to marry them under any faith.
CALLER: Because they can claim, of course, that they believe what you believe with one exception, and then you’re discriminating against them the same as the couple that said they didn’t want to photograph the wedding because they didn’t believe in it religiously.
RUSH: Okay. I got it now. Justin basically says that they don’t really care about what they claim to care about. They’re just political activists trying to tear down people they think stand in their way of being perceived as “normal” or what have you. That’s what he thinks. It really isn’t about love and all that. It’s about equality and inequality, fairness and unfairness. I think on the left, yeah. If we’re to believe what Justin thinks, yeah, everything on the left is politics. Everything. Even landing on the aircraft carrier.
RUSH: There’s one more Bill Donohue bite here, and it dovetails exactly with the point that Justin made, our caller from West Covina, California. He said, “Hey, this isn’t gonna stop at wedding cakes and photographing wedding ceremonies. The next thing that’s gonna happen is they’re gonna demand a church marry them, and the church is gonna refuse, and Obama’s gonna move in and strip the church of its tax-exempt status and destroy the church unless they marry them.”
Donohue brings that up here. You should hear this. Again, Donohue was talking to Chris Cuomo at CNN. And Cuomo says to Mr. Donohue, “The question is: Can you point out a business that was made a substantial burden religiously because of what they had to do vis-a-vis a gay person?” Can you point out to me a business that was harmed because it had to patronize a gay customer?
DONOHUE: A photographer says, “I don’t want to deal with a wedding ceremony.” If that person says, “Listen, the gay people come into my shop, and you’re a gay person, I don’t want to take your picture,” I have no sympathy for these people of faith, all right? When it gets into the question of marriage ceremonies, whether it’s in the secular vein — like I gave an example —
DONOHUE: — or where we’re going, into the churches.
CUOMO: No. But we’re not going there!
DONOHUE: Ohhhhh, I think there are some people —
CUOMO: Nobody is saying — Nobody is saying that a religious organization has to perform gay marriages. Nobody.
DONOHUE: If we have a federal administration which ignores the express will of the people in DOMA, and when you have the people in — take an initiative in California saying, “We don’t want gay marriage,” and then you get judges to overturn it, we’re being besieged.
RUSH: Now, this is classic, ’cause here you have the all-knowing… I don’t know whether this guy’s in on the whole game of the agenda or if he’s a dupe. By that, I mean, Chris Cuomo may actually believe that this was nothing more than weddings and pictures. He may not know that the ultimate aim is to go in and force churches. He may really believe that; I don’t know.
Donohue’s point is, “Well, where do you think this is headed when you’ve got a Regime who is already denying churches and universities of religious foundation their religious freedom? Where do you think we’re headed here? We’re being besieged,” and Chris Cuomo says, “Naaaaah, this isn’t about churches! Nobody’s talking about going to churches,” and the response to that is: YET. But I think the caller from West Covina, California, has got a point, and I bet it isn’t long.
I mean they got victory after victory after victory.
RUSH: Brian in Omaha, you’re next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello, sir. It’s great to have you on the program. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. My belief is that the political movement about homosexuality is about other people’s money and access to it with via taxation. How many local, state, and now the federal government are providing benefits to homosexual couples? That’s what this is about.
RUSH: I haven’t thought of that.
CALLER: Follow the money.
RUSH: Wait a minute. I haven’t heard this. I want to follow this. You think that the political nature — it is political — of the homosexual movement is about tax money?
CALLER: Access to other people’s money.
RUSH: Access to other people’s money?
CALLER: Through taxation.
CALLER: “You will support our lifestyle.”
RUSH: Oh. Oh, oh, oh.
CALLER: In so doing, the behavior will then be legitimized.
RUSH: “You will support our lifestyle, and in doing so, our behavior will be…” Okay, walk me through an example of what you mean here.
CALLER: How many governments are now providing benefits to homosexual couples? And in so doing, they’re saying, “Your behavior is legitimate. Homosexuality is a behavior.”
RUSH: Well —
RUSH: Isn’t it?
CALLER: Yes, it is, and what they want is to legitimize their behavior, to say, “Our behavior is mainstream, despite the fact that we are a very small portion of the population,” and they use bully tactics to get their way.
RUSH: Okay, look. I understand everybody wants to know that they’re cool and “normal.” I understand. But what is the…? How are they getting other people to support their lifestyle? Walk me through it. What are they doing? I’m not… I’m just asking you. Don’t misunderstand my tone. I’m not arguing with you. I just want to understand, and the best way I can is if you give me an example of tax money somehow being transferred to gay couples for their support.
CALLER: How many gay couples work for governments? And now homosexual couples are working for the government, and the government is now providing them with benefits, the same as heterosexual couples.
RUSH: Oh, you mean like in gay marriage? Gay marriage is about acquiring health benefits and other benefits?
CALLER: Yes, and pretty soon it will be forced upon all businesses throughout the land and religious organizations throughout the land, otherwise you will be considered to be committing some form of hate crime, heaven forbid.
RUSH: Okay. So to help me —
CALLER: In so doing, people who do not engage in this risky behavior, well, then are forced to subsidize that risky behavior.
RUSH: Okay, to help me understand this, let’s use what happened in Arizona. A couple walks in and wants Baker A to bake them a wedding cake and they’re gay. He says, “No. A, I don’t want to have to go to your gay wedding. B, my religious beliefs proscribe it. I’d rather not bake your cake.” So how does that result in that gay couple getting money?
CALLER: The homosexual couple takes them to court and sues, and the judge says, “Okay, now, you have to do this for them or you will face a penalty.”
RUSH: I see. So the result is that via the court decision, the baker has to fork over money, which legitimizes the lifestyle that he, on religious grounds, disagrees with, and that stamps it as “normal”?
RUSH: Okay. That’s what you mean. Okay. That’s fine. That’s cool. I just want to understand how you thought process goes, ’cause I have a rule, “Always follow the money,” but I had not attached that to this. (interruption) Well, that already… (interruption) Yeah. Look, it… (interruption) Well, that’s already… (interruption) Employer, health plans and visitation in the hospital.
You know, that’s why the civil union thing didn’t work out because aren’t any benefits there. But you allow gay marriage as a legitimate thing, and they’re the benefits and you can leave, you know, your 50Â¢ or whatever in your will to… (interruption) Yeah. Whatever you have. (interruption) Yeah, that’s undeniable, I suppose. The point is, there are a lot of tentacles that are being interwoven. It’s an intricately woven web of deceit, per se, for some people who had not even figured the financial angle of this.