Arizona | Bernie Goldberg | FOX News | News | Shannon Bream

FOX News Wingbot Wonders Why Gays Don't Just Go Do Business Where They're Accepted: VIDEO

Goldberg

Reacting to the controversy over Arizona's SB 1062, Fox News host Shannon Bream asks Bernie Goldberg why gays just don't go do business with someone who wants to serve them rather than stand up for their right to be served:

"This is America. We all have freedoms. Why would you want to do business with somebody - no matter what your personal issue was that they had with you - why would you want to force them to do business with you? Why not just go down the street and say I'm going to spend my money with somebody who supports me, and is kind to me, and wants to help me and provide these services for me?"

Goldberg tries to reason with Bream by using the example of a woman in a similar situation and then explains that the African-American civil rights movement began by people standing up for themselves.

Bream counters with — some African-Americans are not happy because they claim that gays are co-opting the civil rights movement.

Then, when Goldberg tries to explain that he disagrees with that sentiment, she cuts him off and goes to commercial! Goldberg is not amused.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Yes, sort of like in the south before the civil rights act. If one business had a sign in the window that said "No Blacks Allowed" the colored folks just went down the street to those other welcoming business. So when I see the signs that say "We Don't Serve Gays" I'll just go down the street where they do. Unless there isn't an alternative down the street and then I just guess I'm out of luck. Or if there is one down the street maybe they aren't as good or charge more but oh well, at least they'll serve me if I'm lucky.

    Posted by: e.c. | Feb 28, 2014 10:45:36 AM


  2. the usual foxshit.

    Posted by: Daniel Berry, NYC | Feb 28, 2014 10:49:41 AM


  3. Homophobia, bigotry and oppression is just another day on FOX News.

    Posted by: NotSafeForWork | Feb 28, 2014 10:50:15 AM


  4. WE ARE CO-OPTING THE MOVEMENT! It's called the civil rights movement for a reason, you stupid c*nt.

    Posted by: D.R.H. | Feb 28, 2014 10:50:47 AM


  5. I'd like to open a salon where puppet conservatives can come to get their hair over-bleached. And then refuse to serve that b*tch.

    Posted by: Cinemaniac | Feb 28, 2014 10:55:50 AM


  6. Not to mention that having to ask around whether someone will serve you is very demeaning and shouldn't be required of anyone.

    Posted by: Steve | Feb 28, 2014 10:58:08 AM


  7. Bernie is a delusional ass- he and Mr. Hume are ex-ABC nutcases who clearly found a home on Faux Snooze. But even blonde no. 1 Megyn-couldn't stomach the bile that was emitting from his piehole.

    Posted by: Nick | Feb 28, 2014 10:59:35 AM


  8. You don't expect Fox News to be "FAIR AND BALANCE" do you?

    Posted by: Macmantoo | Feb 28, 2014 11:04:10 AM


  9. The last half second of this interview is awesome. The complete disappointment and frustration with faux news is summed up by Goldberg's facial expression.

    Posted by: Sean | Feb 28, 2014 11:17:33 AM


  10. "Public Accommodations" law says that if you're open to the public, you have to serve the public. If a person opens a business KNOWING that they intend to discriminate against some group of individuals, then based on the LAW, they can expect to get sued. I have no sympathy for people who open a place of public accommodation EXPECTING to break the laws that cover public accommodations. They should be sued out of business. And ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    Public accommodation laws came into effect because hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, clothing stores, etc. all provide indispensable services to the public. If you're traveling through the south as a black person in the 1950s, you could not expect to eat at a restaurant NOR stay over night in a hotel. And small mom and pop grocery stores might bar your entry as well. These are services that can be emergent in certain cases, and the Supreme Court realized that when they held that public accommodations must be available to all citizens. And rightfully so.

    So if you're a bigot, a homophobe or a misogynist or Muslim, and you don't want to serve a woman (unaccompanied by a man); or you don't want to serve gay people; or black people... well, best not to open a business that serves the public...given the law as it is!

    Posted by: Dan Cobb | Feb 28, 2014 11:22:19 AM


  11. "Attack of the Killer Anchorblondes"

    John Waters, I've got your next movie right here.

    Posted by: dommyluc | Feb 28, 2014 11:24:46 AM


  12. I understand the "public accommodation" laws and I fully support that idea. However, if businesses were up front about their bigotry, it would help me know where to spend my money. Which is exactly why I don't eat at Chic fil A or shop Hobby Lobby.

    Posted by: Chadd | Feb 28, 2014 12:14:48 PM


  13. Reminds me of the ad where a man goes house to house asking permission of each resident if he can marry another man. So she would put the burden on LGBT people to contact each business to see if they will serve them. Goldberg was good, when he was able to get his explanation in between the silly questions.

    As far as the black pastors who don't like the fight for LGBT rights being compared to the civil rights of the sixties - of course the two battles are different, but they are also quite similar. And it is all part of the same struggle - the struggle for full equality. Religious beliefs were used as a justification for discrimination against blacks also. Just ask Bob Jones University.

    Posted by: john patrick | Feb 28, 2014 12:25:24 PM


  14. Hey dumba*s: most of these bible thumpers don't show their true bigot colors until they find out the person is gay!

    Posted by: BETTY | Feb 28, 2014 12:31:03 PM


  15. One of the amendments offered by a Democratic legislator to SB 1062 here in Arizona was that businesses had to have signs or areas on their website listing which groups they would refuse to do business with. The Republicans immediately voted that down.

    Posted by: homer | Feb 28, 2014 12:31:33 PM


  16. Let us also not forget the other aspect of these soi disant "religious liberty" bills that is frequently not mentioned: a pharmacist or pharmacy tech could object to selling contraceptives or Plan B to a customer based on their "sincerely held religious belief" and the patron would have no recourse whatsoever. No mention is made of making accommodation for the patron or anything.

    Effectively, these proposed pieces of legislation are another social conservative vehicle to advance a particular religious agenda onto the general public using the force of law. The death of secular pluralism is the true goal, lest anyone be fooled. ;-)

    Posted by: Jim in Colo Spgs | Feb 28, 2014 12:32:44 PM


  17. If you assume that bigots are punished by being forced to serve you against their wishes then this is a heapful of spite. If you think it changes people's attitudes in general then it's what you would call social engineering. However, people make political statements when shopping all the time. Making political statements while selling apparently is verboten. I'm not sure of the case law regarding "atmosphere", like a cake shop that displays Nazi paraphernalia. I think there are some circumstances where it can be regulated, but it's dicey since now we've gone against two clauses in the first amendment. Almost all the case law for strictly first amendment businesses such as newspapers grant them complete freedom, so newspapers can decline any ad under editorial prerogative and issue any political comments ad nauseum. They can also refuse to hire people on similar grounds. Nazi newspapers can refuse to hire Jews and blacks, for example.

    What this all comes down to is how strongly you support the first amendment's freedom of association clause. The freedom of religion clause is a red herring that misses the point entirely.

    Posted by: anon | Feb 28, 2014 12:33:44 PM


  18. Guess they are yearning for an updated return of the so-called “good old days,” but I wonder how these proposals would be implemented, and the public would know who was welcome - or not welcome - where?

    Signs in parts of the US before desegregation would sometimes say: “No Colored Allowed,” “Colored Must Sit In Balcony,” “No Dogs, Negroes or Mexicans,” and “We Serve Whites Only, No Spanish or Mexicans.”

    Signs in foreign-run concession areas of Hong Kong, China during the semi-colonial era before 1949 would sometimes say: “No Dogs and Chinese Allowed.”

    Signs in windows of rental accommodation in England in the 1950s and 1960s would sometimes say: “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs.”

    Signs in apartheid-era South Africa would also neatly organize the population’s use of facilities, and would sometimes say: “Europeans Only,” “For Use By White Persons,” “Blacks, Coloureds & Asians,” “Whites Only,” “Blacks Only.”

    Maybe these days we would just get graphics - no words - that will spell it out for the “undesireables.”

    Posted by: edude | Feb 28, 2014 12:47:18 PM


  19. well, there's a whole new line of business opening up for signage designers and sign-makers. Some kind of comprehensive visual alphabet on who is and is not going to be served. No blondes? No ugly people? No poors? No jews? No people-with-white-shoes-after-labor day? No consumers of shellfish? No wearers of mixed fibers. Maybe google can come up with some sort of device that contains all our information, preferences and 'lifestyle choices', to be scanned and checked as we enter an establishment - or are prevented from doing so.

    Posted by: hugo | Feb 28, 2014 1:08:59 PM


  20. She looks like a drag queen, with the heavy makeup, wig-like hair and Christmas ball earrings, but not as pleasing as one.

    Posted by: trees | Feb 28, 2014 1:09:00 PM


  21. She is still in denial. It is OVER. Even GOP has spoken loud and clear. It is a non-starter.

    Posted by: simon | Feb 28, 2014 1:42:00 PM


  22. I hate to admit it, but there is a grain of truth in his statements.

    Most people with a conscience would avoid Chick-Fil-Hate, wouldn't they?

    But legalized discrimination is quite despicable and immoral.

    Posted by: TonyJazz | Feb 28, 2014 2:50:15 PM


  23. Because if the business can't be kind to everyone, regardless, then that business shouldn't be in business at all and should have it's license to do business revoked. Period.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Feb 28, 2014 3:03:07 PM


  24. that kind of behavior and thinking is pathetic!! These right wingers always talk about the Constitution, except for the gblt community... As Mr. Goldberg said, the issue is FREEDOM!!! not a difficult concept except for these wingnut jobs!

    Posted by: Bernie | Feb 28, 2014 5:37:54 PM


  25. Shannon Bream seems to be the ultimate Fox News anchor. The lights are on, but no one is home. She has been given her talking points and nothing is going to register. She listens and there is no sign that she understands anything. Frightening to watch.

    She hears Goldberg describe the early race battles and has no comprehension or empathy. So, here's how you have to phrase the question to her:

    If you wanted to go to a nice beauty salon, but the one you chose said, "We don't serve blondes." In fact, all of the best salons did not serve blondes. You had to go into each salon and ask whether they would do your hair. Each one said no. How would that make you feel?

    Posted by: gr8guyca | Feb 28, 2014 10:51:46 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «A Shirtless Chainsmokers '#SELFIE' Parody from Scotty Dynamo: VIDEO« «