Family Research Council | Peter Sprigg

Watch: Peter Sprigg Claims FRC Is Not A Hate Group

Peter Sprigg, who has in the past advocated for both criminalization of homosexuality and the mass exportation of gays from the United States, is criticizing last year's addition of the Family Research Council in Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups. You may recall that FRC president Tony Perkins also objected to SPLC's classification at the time of last year's announcement.

Watch Sprigg in a spot on the Christian Broadcasting Network continue to bash gays and and yet still take offense to what he calls "these gratuitous charges of hate," AFTER THE JUMP.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. What's up with his hair??

    Posted by: zeddy | Apr 3, 2011 3:49:48 PM

  2. Most men who abuse children has been proven to be hetrosexual this man and family research council spreads lies and is justly called a hate group!

    Posted by: Reverend Joseph Shore-Goss | Apr 3, 2011 4:02:30 PM

  3. FRC works HARD to deny and prevent other American Citizens the civil rights they enjoy. FRC works hard to marginalize a minority group of American Citizens through speech, political actions, and the spreading of lies. FRC is a hate group because they target one group of American Citizens and call them a threat to families, Faith, and the nation. Hate speech and action at its basic most refined form. FRC is allowed to say and think what ever it wants, just Like the KKK or Neo-Nazis are. They are all part of the Hate Community. But unlike the KKK and Neo-Nazis the FRC is very very active in working to deny Civil Rights to American Citizens.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Apr 3, 2011 4:28:54 PM

  4. Haters gonna' hate. That alone defines the FRC.

    Posted by: Drew | Apr 3, 2011 5:03:52 PM

  5. Bear in mind Sprigg's phraseology. He is admitting that there are problems with how FRC pushes science.

    Posted by: a.mcewen | Apr 3, 2011 5:23:18 PM

  6. FRC is a hate group. Peter Sprigg's hair is beautiful.

    Posted by: TANK | Apr 3, 2011 5:30:37 PM

  7. Crazy wing nuts don't think they're crazy wing nuts.

    Posted by: Rob | Apr 3, 2011 5:32:54 PM

  8. why do these guys always have 'yellow' colored hair, with ugly side-parts? They look like rejects from a 1980's Ken doll factory.

    Posted by: Chuck | Apr 3, 2011 5:52:40 PM

  9. Why are haters so damn butt-ugly?

    Posted by: gayalltheway | Apr 3, 2011 6:58:18 PM

  10. Haters like the FRC klan never look in the mirror because they don't wanna see haters lookin' back at 'em. They know what they are but they can't stand the truth! And, silly me, it negatively affects their non-stop homophobic fund-raising efforts.

    Posted by: Hadenoughbs | Apr 3, 2011 7:04:54 PM

  11. has the repub party been deemed a hate group yet?

    Posted by: me | Apr 3, 2011 7:17:41 PM

  12. Huh. The report wasn't as one sided as I expected
    BUT -
    The fact that they had to put up the definition of "veneer" when the 'bishop' used the word says A LOT about the CBN audience.

    Posted by: lookyloo | Apr 3, 2011 9:10:04 PM

  13. @ lookyloo

    You are an idiot. I could write a 10 page essay on how one-sided that was, but it honestly just seems like a waste of my time. Go back to school. take a poli sci class, and educate yourself on the media and how it really works.

    Posted by: RGB | Apr 3, 2011 10:40:33 PM

  14. @rgb

    "Media" is a plural word. "Medium" is the singular form. Educate yourself on how the media WORK, and take a remedial class in English while you're at it.

    Posted by: Paul Weidig | Apr 3, 2011 10:47:11 PM

  15. So my reasoning becomes nullified because you are a grammar nazi? Also, they way I am referring to "the media" is as it's on unique and individual monster. But still, the idea that grammar somehow subverts the ideas that these statements represent is ridiculous. Critical thinking is a skill much more valuable than something Word could point out with a squiggly green line. You are really pathetic.

    Posted by: RGB | Apr 3, 2011 11:33:48 PM

  16. That's Ted Haggard closeted & self hating hair if ever I've seen it.

    Posted by: pat | Apr 4, 2011 2:52:27 AM

  17. Raise your hand if this was news for you. Wow. Really? Not one hand? I'm so clearly shocked. Really, at this point, a child could predict how the frc will respond to anything and nail it every time.

    Posted by: Cocoa | Apr 4, 2011 4:36:10 AM

  18. Is anyone surprised that the this was produced by the christian broadcast network and was written in a way that they are the victims? Anyone? Did not think so.
    Message to all you gay-hating people out there: There will come the time when you will have to stand before your maker and explain why YOU decided how the world was supposed to be and not how she/he/it created the world.

    Posted by: Xochial Crash | Apr 4, 2011 6:50:45 AM

  19. If it looks like a hate group, acts like a hate group, and spreads lies like a hate group...chances are it's a hate group. And it's NOT their religious opposition to gays which earns them that designation, it's their ongoing campaign of distortions and lies about the gay community. They will quite literally say anything to demonize us without it having any basis in fact. And they do it to scare their constituents into sending them money. But when they're called on it, THEY'RE the victims?!

    My favorite example of this is when a Florida "family" group (affiliated with the FRC) sent out a newsletter about a lesbian couple who were allowed to adopt a child. (One of them was related to the child, which is how it got past FL's anti-gay adoption laws.) But the photo the group used to illustrate the story wasn't of the actual couple who adopted the child, who looked like they could be on the cover of a yuppie clothing catalog, but of a "scary" (at least to the FRC) lesbian couple with mullet haircuts. All complaints about 'looks-ism' or classism aside, the couple in the photo they used fit a stereotype and they aren't the actual couple involved in the case. Called on this misrepresentation, this 'religious' group claimed it happened by accident. Yeah, right. In that case these groups seem to be quite accident-prone because they do this sort of thing all the time.

    Posted by: greenmanTN | Apr 4, 2011 12:19:17 PM

  20. Peter Sprigg has advocated the criminalization of homosexuality as well as the mass exportation of LGBT citizens from the U.S. And very few speak out against those odious ideas. Now substitute African Americans, or Jews, or women, or Christians for LGBT, and see how long he'd get away with such hate-fueled arguments. He'd have the NAACP and Al Sharpton and the Anti-Defamation League and Abe Foxman and NOW and Terry O'Neill and every Christian group denouncing him and his hate-mongering organization. But when the FRC's target is LGBT people, the silence is almost deafening.

    Posted by: Pablito | Apr 4, 2011 12:37:07 PM

  21. Peter Sprigg, like so many of his "colleagues", e.g., George Rekers, are "allegedly hetero." What hetero man would devote so much time and energy against the gays unless he felt some innate kinship.

    Posted by: mattgmd | Apr 4, 2011 4:59:06 PM

Post a comment


« «California Bill Would Require Schools Teach LGBT History« «