Michelle Duggar issues robocall urging people to vote ‘no’ on anti-discrimination

The Duggar family teaches their children that the earth is 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. To say their belief system is woefully uninformed is an understatement.

As far as The Duggars’ forays into politics, they endorsed Rick Santorum for President in 2012, reasoning that they wanted “a man that honors God to lead our nation.” In 2009, Michelle Duggar successfully blocked a local convenience store’s attempt to get a license to sell beer. She went to the ABC (state licensure) meeting in which the license was expected to be granted and started crying about the fact that alcohol would be available in her town. She later said that “our children should not be bombarded with that. It’s so close to home.” There’s beer available at the EZ-Mart, won’t someone think of the children?!

Michelle Duggar is so concerned about the children that she’s involved in local activism again. She recorded a robocall urging citizens to vote “no” on a new anti-discrimination ordinance in her town of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that aims to protect access to “employment, housing, and public accommodations” for all. Michelle has latched on to a provision that allows transgender people their choice of restrooms and public facilities. She’s worried that a transgender person will creep on her kids. Really. There’s a transgender woman peeing in the stall next to me, won’t someone think of the children?!

US Magazine has details of the call and you can hear the recording on TMZ if you’re interested:

19 Kids and Counting matriarch Michelle Duggar is making headlines today, Aug. 19, for recording a robocall in which she speaks out against an anti-discrimination ordinance in Fayetteville, Ark. Audio of the call was published this week by both the Fayetteville Flyer and TMZ.

According to local news station KFSM, the ordinance in question would create a “civil rights administrator, who would be able to use the city’s powers to ensure ‘all persons within the city have equal access to employment, housing, and public accommodations.’” It would also prevent businesses from discriminating on the basis of things like race, age, religion, sexual orientation, and gender, as well as allow transgender individuals to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.

Duggar’s issue seems to be with that last factor. In her call, she says that the ordinance “would allow men — yes, I said men — to use women’s and girls’ restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas, and other areas that are designated for females only.” She goes on to say that she doesn’t believe “the citizens of Fayetteville would want males, with past child predator convictions, that claim they are female, to have a legal right to enter private areas reserved for women and girls.”

The recording continues: “I doubt that Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their daughters or allow them to be traumatized by a man joining them in their private space. We should never place the preference of an adult over the safety and innocence of a child. Parents, who do you want undressing next to your daughter at the public swimming pool’s private changing area?”

[From US Magazine]

As if she would ever let her children change in a public locker room. US Magazine points out that the organization she cites at the end, FreeFayetteville.org, has denied funding this robocall, which is wise even if they did pay for it. Why would they want to take credit for some idiotic fearmongering that mentions transgender people and child predators in the same sentence?

Moving on to other Duggar news, Jessa Duggar recently announced her engagement to that guy who doesn’t understand Catholicism because it doesn’t adhere to his religion’s strict interpretation of The Bible.

Jim Bob And Michelle Duggar At The CPAC 2012

Jim Bob And Michelle Duggar At The CPAC 2012

Photo credit: screenshot from video and FameFlynet

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

268 Responses to “Michelle Duggar issues robocall urging people to vote ‘no’ on anti-discrimination”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lilacflowers says:

    Because Jesus was a bigot?

  2. NewWester says:

    I would say something snarky about Michelle, but I think she is traumatized from all those years waking up next to Jim Bob.

  3. GiGi says:

    So much ugh. I’m all for everyone having the right to believe what they want, but keep your crazy to yourself, mmm-k?

    I know a handful of people like the Duggars…. and here’s what I don’t get. Genesis is apparently completely factual (i.e., the universe is 6000 years old, etc.), but Leviticus (menstruating women must be isolated, no eating milk with meat, no mixed fabrics) can just be written off? Get it together people. Either you believe that every word of the Bible is God-breathed and the Law or you don’t. I cannot abide a picky-choosy situation.

    • Di says:

      So many fundamentalists/extremists are cherry-pickers.

    • Scarlet Vixen says:

      I just woke up, so I could be fuzzy on the reasoning. But I think that the theory is that when Christ came he did away with Mosaic law, hence doing away with lots of rules listed in the Old Testament dealing with stuff like animal sacrifice, eating clean & non-clean meats, stoning people, etc. God was now forgiving and not vengeful, so his rules changed. Changing the list of rules to follow doesn’t change the timeline of events tho, hence why these people still think their 6,000 years is still accurate.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        But the only references to homosexuality are in the Old Testament, and they cling to that like a lifeline. There is no “reasoning” with these animals. Whatever can be perverted into something that suits the fat headed white men with bad haircuts is what the Bible says.

      • Sam says:

        GoodNames: There are what are believed to be 3 references to homosexuality in the New Testament – but all of them come from St. Paul, not Jesus, let it said. And its not totally clear as to what Paul was referring to. Many theologians believe that Paul was in fact talking about pedophilia, NOT consenting same-sex relationships. But the problem with people like the Duggars is that they rarely, if ever, actually undertake any critical reading of the Bible. If anything, they do it a serious injustice by NOT trying to discover what it was originally trying to say. But that’s just my two-cents.

        (If you really want to drive people crazy, bring up the story of Jesus and the Centurion’s servant: there’s actual evidence in the text that Jesus met a same-sex couple and healed one of them, which would made fundie heads spin).

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Thanks, Sam. I meant specific references, not interpretations as, but still good info. Will whip out the Centurion’s servant at the next family reunion. Thanks!

      • Chris says:

        I’d say a lot of people would agree that St Paul gives Christianity a bad name, as far as peace, love and understanding are concerned!
        You can read the gospels and the Acts, even as an atheist, and glean much that’s inspiring, but Paul has a cruel streak, more typical of Martin Luther or John Knox.
        (And here endeth the lesson)

      • GByeGirl says:

        “I came here not to do away with the laws of the Fathers”

        Jesus still practiced and upheld the Judaic practices of the Old Testament.

    • Chris says:

      This type of thing really rams home the danger of including religion in a country’s constitution, imo. There are citizens for whom the bible is a work of historical literature akin to Homer, for example. I feel that this late in our evolution we should be able to treat religious beliefs as exactly that….beliefs. Not even the most inspiring preacher can present anything factual, so it is such a waste of our energies to fight over who is right in these matters. By all means show respect to those beliefs, but imo there should be no civil involvement at all…no tax breaks, no subsidy for faith schools. Build a legislation that protects the right to worship but which does not accord it any special privilege, least of all financial.
      If the majority of citizens are, for example, Christian, nothing impedes or insults that; but if they control the legislature through the lens of extreme beliefs, they strip others
      (non-believers, other faiths) of their right to live in a society based on tolerance and equality. (Lest it be thought I’m anti-USA, I am in fact thinking of Ireland here)
      (Another bulletin from the Dept of the Obvious!)

    • Chris says:

      Just a very silly aside, and not with any offense intended…..but have we ever stopped to wonder why there are strictures against cross-dressing in Leviticus? (And a few other enthralling by-laws) Interesting amusements en route through the desert, what?!
      And what were the citizens of Gomorrah up to at all, at all? (We know what Jah disapproved of in the neighbouring city, of course)

      • JustChristy says:

        As a non believer who does have an interest in the bible and using more critical than literal thinking about it, I’ve heard that S&G were not necessarily destroyed for the allegedly sexually immoral acts being done by their citizens, but that they were being inhospitable to visiting peoples. So god was like “not cool, asswipes,” and smote the lot of em. This was from the doc “Jesus Loves Me,” which was on Netflix when I saw it, and worth a watch if the whole gays and Christian fanaticism thing interests you :)

        Also, the Duggars should be more worried about Bill Gothard and his ilk peeping or worse on their daughters, than they should ever be about a trans person in a public bathroom.

  4. Jem says:

    I tried reading this article, but I got a few sentences in and brain said “nope”. Ive reached an age where I just CAN’T anymore with stupid, hateful people.

    • Mon says:

      @Jem, yes, I know how you feel. Shame that there are so many of them around. Even worse that, like someone had mentioned before, they use religion as an excuse to be ignorant and to hate. Calling them stupid would be an injustice, this borderlines on dangerous… Have they ever heard of education and the wonders it could do to a person?!

      • Lady D says:

        I think they are afraid of education. Head in the sand approach suits them just fine.

      • Algernon says:

        I just watched a documentary on Netflix called “The Revisionists” about the battle in Texas over including creationism in school textbooks. These people are actively engaged in ***not*** being educated.

      • mayamae says:

        It’s called willful ignorance, and these people wallow in it.

      • Chris says:

        (I apologise for overdoing the comments here, but the topic’s so compelling, especially to an outsider.)
        That woman’s ravings about the rights of children are so bogus. One right a child should have, in a rich Western nation, is an education. Fundamentalists deny not only scientifically provable phenomena, but would outlaw much great literature and story-telling traditions, insisting that imagination is the path to perdition. This of course makes ignorant children, more likely to swallow their parent’s misguidance. But it also steals from them the pleasure of learning for its own sake, and the chance to discover a passion for a subject (paleontology’d be a good start)
        So in this I am all for the nanny state! Intervene, and insist the kids be entered into mainstream, secular education. She’s not protecting her children, she’s harming them and I think their right to an education is more important than her religious beliefs. Surely there’s something in the Constitution??!! Laws and rights enshrined there can be interpreted in more than one way, the gun lobby being a good example. The ‘right to bear arms’ is taken as a clear invitation to do so, or even as an act of duty to the constitution. Yet there is also the spirit in which that was written: it was equally about abolishing the English class distinction whereby only the nobility could carry a weapon.
        So whip out your constitution parchments and find some clause to show that kids should go to school!!

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        I completely agree with the overall points you make. Just a few counterpoints:
        Insisting that children receive mainstream education is shaky ground because you are then legislating that parents must send their children to schools that run counter to family and personal beliefs. Remember that not all home schooling Christian fundamentalists are as ridiculous as the Duggars. There are some parents who do not want their children educated publicly and with all of the detractions that can come with that. Should they be mandated to do so?
        Also realize that for many school districts even home educators must abide by a core curriculum that is bound to include many, if not all of the educational tenets that would otherwise be omitted. So many of these children will be exposed to paleontology, other religions etc. the difference is that the parents are there to remind the children that they don’t believe in it themselves – but the facts are still usually taught. So it is not as if these fundamentalist children will necessarily be ignorant. And actually opposing views are sometimes taught to the children so they will be better able to refute them with their own biblical views.
        It is just dangerous to assume that all fundamentalists want to educate their children outside the mainstream in order to indoctrinate and brainwash them. Some are simply tired of seeing their district’s broken educational system failing their children. Some want their children to be able to comfortably observe religious rites openly. I’ve even heard of a handful of mainstream, agnostic parents who chose to have their children home schooled on a fundamentalist Christian farm. They supplemented the parts of the curriculum they weren’t in agreement with but were more than okay with this because their kids were in a pastoral, organic, natural setting. Vegetable growing, animal husbandry, cave exploring, geology and conservationism were just as important as math, language arts, science, literature and even religion. You don’t want to sweep away models like that with legislation.

  5. RN says:

    I’m afraid I can’t take political advice from someone who would do that to her hair.

  6. Eleonor says:

    I do not like religious extremists, no matter what religion is, I think they do not deserve all the media attention they get: religion should be a private thing.

    • Ruyana says:

      Absolutely agree! I don’t want to hear about what people did in bed last night and I don’t want to hear about their religion. A man helped me put air in my car tire and invited me to his megachurch. I politely told him I don’t believe God lives in a building, nor do I have to prove my belief to any person by attending. So he says, “Well, do you know Jesus?” I said “Yes” and barely resisted the urge to say “He comes to tea every Saturday”. Because the man was polite and helpful after all.

      Mrs. Duggar has no business recording robocalls. That’s time she should have spent taking care of one of her 222 children, or however many came out of her clown car uterus.

  7. Tiffany says:

    The thing that is funny about her and this is, she was quite a hellraiser before she met Jim Blob and became a human incubator. Maybe she misses the life ;) .

  8. Di says:

    What a myopic moron. Please, Gaia, don’t allow another cretin to fall from her womb.

  9. Esmom says:

    Wow, there are no words for the contempt I feel for this family. And I just read that the daughter who just got married is pregnant already, a mere 30 days after tying the knot. That hardly seems possible but the cycle apparently continues…

  10. Frida_K says:

    I listened to a link of her call that was in some online article about this. Oh, wow. She has the most annoying, whiny “mommy voice” and she’s simply delusional.

    She seems to think that the one and only thought on a m-to-f transgender person’s mind is that of getting into the locker room and abusing little girls. Also, she seems to think that maybe child molesters will pretend to be transgender persons just so that they could get in the public bathrooms.

    She’s delusional.

  11. eliza says:

    These people DISGUST me. The end.

  12. kcarp says:

    I am ashamed to admit I get sucked into them almost everyday on TLC. They are such weirdos.

    My little one was watching one day and she said,”these are some cool kids.”

    I said if you think these kids are cool you must know some real losers.

    She is almost 3 so she does’t really know.

  13. Dammitchristy says:

    I live in Jacksonville, Florida and I’m openly gay. A few years ago, we had the option to have an all inclusive human rights ordinance in our town. It was turned down because of the absurd excuses of: child molestation and because next we would be demanding to sleep with dead people and animals. (The city council member who said this is named Kimberly Daniels and she can cast out demons. She also refuses to buy candy during the fall months because witches pray over the candy. She’s a giant face-palm whenever she opens her mouth)

  14. Talie says:

    You know, this woman has nearly 20 kids… the odds that one or more of them are gay is a HUGE possibility. Of course, their parents’ pea brains would never entertain this possibility, but still…

    • AmyR says:

      Though part of me hopes that’s true, the other part of me fears for that hypothetical gay child, because you know the Duggars would try conversion therapy.

    • doofus says:

      1 in 10, so statistically, two of those kids could be gay.

      and what sucks is that kid would probably face all sorts of self-hating and depression because of what he/she had been taught about “the evil gays”.

    • Adele Dazeem says:

      On one hand, I truly hope none of the Duggar children are gay purely because it would be a living hell for them. On the other hand, if any of them are gay, what a fantastic life lesson for Jim Bob and Michelle. Would they really cast out their child in favour of their God’s teachings?

      I so hope one of these children rebels – not in a drug-addled, crazy way – but purely decides to leave home, go to an actual, real university and get a job that means moving away from the family home and living a life that opens up their world to possibilities beyond having copious amounts of children.

  15. outstandingworldcitizen says:

    Wow, just when you think Christian conservatives could not get crazier. Such misinformed hyperbole and fear mongering. If anyone on this board watches this show, I implore you to stop watching her show. Popularity fuels their ridiculous nonsense.

  16. An says:

    Absolutely vile and disgusting!

  17. AmyR says:

    So now can we finally put to bed the argument that we should leave them alone because they’re a nice family and the kids are well behaved and they’re not hurting anyone else?

  18. grabbyhands says:

    I just can’t with this family or people who think that they’re harmless. They’re not. The whole lot of them are bigoted religious extremists with way too big of a platform with which to espouse their zealotry. The moment you equate gay or transgender rights to a sexual predator (because of course, that’s what they all are, right?) trying to sneak into your kid’s private space is the moment you no longer get to call yourself a loving Christian.

  19. msw says:

    Wah, other people don’t share my myopic, discriminatory, policing world view! Wah! Freedom for all, unless your beliefs contradict my own! Rah!

    I had no problem with the Duggars, personally, until recently. I dont care if they have tons of kids or believe strongly in something I don’t. Their f’ed up religion is another story. I have no respect for groups that try to keep women subservient by brainwashing them into believing they’re too stupid to make it on their own. Its so cowardly and dumb.

  20. rianic says:

    I actually live outside of Fayetteville and an quite active here (Keep Fayetteville Funky!! Is the town slogan). It’s quite a laid back college town, and liberal for the south. I don’t think she’s going to affect anyone.

    However, just a weird fact – from what I’ve seen in the photos, Jessa got engaged at Basin Park in Eureka Springs, which has a large GLBT community. It’s a tourist town, and I call it a cross between Victorian/hippy/biker town. When Arkansas passed the gay marriage ordinance, many of the first marriages occurred in Basin Park because their court house issues licenses on Saturday (it’s a wedding destination town).

  21. Kiddo says:

    Don’t worry Michelle, there’s no goddam room in the bathroom if you and your spawn are already in there. And believe me, there is no better way to ingratiate yourself to people than robo-calls. People LOVE getting unsolicited messages by machines during dinner, especially the elderly. Make sure you call yourself Rachel, who can lower credit card debt. She’s EVERYONE’s favorite. Or alternatively, mention that you’re calling from Microsoft and there’s a problem with their computer, that keeps them engaged on the line because it’s very believable.

    PS: What up with the sheep style?

  22. Sam says:

    The logic astounds me. First, does anyone really believe that a male child predator would go through all the trouble of becoming a trans woman (well, not becoming one, but pretending, i suppose) just to molest children?

    I suppose Michelle is not aware that the overwhelming majority of cases of child abuse occur (gasp) IN THE HOME and the perp is somebody the child knows and trusts. Her little kids are far more likely to be molested by one of their copius relatives (statistically speaking) than any trans woman skulking around bathrooms.

    Here’s the thing – she’s probably been in bathrooms with trans women. I know trans people. Generally, they don’t go around declaring their trans status (especially given the climate of violence around them). They just go about their lives. And yes, that means they use your bathrooms. How would somebody know the genital situation of anyone else unless they mean to check? How would this be enforced? Does Michelle approve of inspections in public restrooms? How does this work, exactly? So many questions…

    • lucy2 says:

      I just recently saw part of a talk Laverne Cox did, speaking about the violence and harassment that many trans people face. It was quite moving – Michelle should listen to it, but I doubt it would sink in.
      This is one of those times you wish for a Freaky Friday situation – some bigot like Michelle having to live life as one of the people she discriminates against, even if just for a day.

  23. Leaflet says:

    Imo, there is more religious influence involved in government than it needs to be. If they want to cherry pick the laws they want to abide by, as a church, they should go live like the Amish. These religious institutions don’t pay taxes yet the have political pacts and crap loads of money to bargain with. Let’s not forget all of the heinous crimes done to the members that are both reported and unreported but are not bought to any real justice. Just tired of the Bible thumpers, I guess.

    • AmyR says:

      Amen! Er, um, I mean, hear hear!

    • Macey says:

      Only problem with that is the Amish wouldnt want them (Im a life long resident in Amish area), they are nothing like the Duggers.
      Believe it or not the Amish are probably the least judgmental and hypocritical religious sect out there. They live true to their belief that everything is God’s will and he is the only one to judge. You will never see them get on soap boxes and try to change a community to their belief and they don’t judge people for their ways b/c thats the way God made them. If they’re doing stuff that goes against their belief than its b/c there is a lesson to be learned and that is btwn that person and their God.
      Im probably not explaining it the best way b/c of lack of sleep and coffee but the Amish way of life and the Duggers couldnt be more polar opposite.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Agree, and I believe the Amish send their children out into the world for a year when they don’t have to follow their rules so they can decide for themselves whether the life is for them.

      • Leaflet says:

        @ Macey, @ GNAT,
        Yes, I met an Amish couple before on the train in the train station. I always admired their culture. People who work with their hands and don’t ask for a thing. The Amish stay out of politics. They pay taxes, albeit they don’t live on any government subsidies. Neither do they seek to impose or bargain with government for everyone to abide by their laws. That’s what I meant by saying that other religions should go live like the Amish (I should have explained this better). The Amish couple that I met were austere in appearance but nice people. I inquired, humbly, about their daily living, and they were nice enough to go into detail about some of their ways. I think it really pleased the young Amish woman to see that I was interested in both her religion and culture.

      • mayamae says:

        The Amish are admirable in many ways, but don’t forget that after your year in the world, you are shunned if you decide to stay worldly. Also, they believe implicitly in absolute and immediate forgiveness. That sounds lovely. But one of the consequences is young Amish girls are being preyed on by Amish males, and not being allowed to report the crime or even testify against the perpetrator – because they must forgive. They unintentionally create an environment suited for predators.

      • Leaflet says:

        I was very ignorant of those details of the Amish religion. I guess no culture is flawless. That sucks to be violated and not have a right to any form of justice. Yet something tells me that if this sort of violation is happening to the women, it may be happening to the young male children as well.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, wow, I didn’t know that. Thanks, Mayamae.

      • mayamae says:

        I feel bad piling on the Amish, but they’re also known for running some of the most horrific puppy mills in the US. Google it.

        @Leaflet, young male Amish children may also be victims. The story I watched specifically focused on girls preyed on by their male family members.

      • lisa says:

        also from an amish area – the amish are incredibly well read, or least they have the freedom to be if they choose to, something the duggar kids arent

      • Pepsi Presents...Coke says:

        Didn’t know about the puppy mills. That’s sad.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Oh, I wish I had the words to say how much I agree with you. As a Christian, it appalls me how corrupted the whole religion has become. Well, I guess it always was in many ways historically, but I remember when the religious right decided to band together as a political power. It has been downhill since. Politics corrupts people. So does power. To me, religion or lack of religion is a personal, individual right and NO religion should seek to control people or force itself on a nation. It’s for strength, solace and uplifting of individuals who find it there. If they find it elsewhere, that is their blessing and absolute right.

    • rianic says:

      This is what I say all the time! If youngest the state out of your church, keep your church out of the state.

  24. maybeiamcrazy says:

    Duggars want to live with their own ridiculous rules in their house? Fine. But I don’t get the audacity of them feeling as if they have a right to prevent other people from living the way they want to. You have your rules and your religious beliefs, other people have their own. Deal with it!

    • doofus says:

      this is the issue I have with anyone who says that gay marriage (or any equality law for LGBT folks) is not fair because it’s religious discrimination.

      no, dipsh*t, we’re not preventing you from practicing your religion or living by your religion’s morals. what we’re doing is preventing you from FORCING YOUR RELIGION’S MORALS ONTO OTHERS WHO DON’T PRACTICE IT.

      don’t approve of gay marriage? don’t get “gay married”. don’t approve of abortion? don’t have one. but don’t tell me that I have to live my life by YOUR religion’s rules if I don’t practice it.

      • Steph says:

        Then if I do not believe in abortion,I do not want my tax dollars going towards abortion services. Birth control pills fine but abortion,no! Better yet get government out of marriage and health mandates. I really could care less what people do in their bedrooms…I just do not want to pay for it!!

      • Sam says:

        Steph – your tax dollars do not support abortions. The Hyde Amendment provides that no federal tax monies can be used to subsidize an abortion procedure. I thought this was sort of common knowledge at this point.

        Also, Steph – I gotta ask – where does this, you know, end, exactly? I’m a Christian Scientist. Should I be permitted to refuse to pay any taxes that go towards Medicare or Medicaid, since I am a member of a church that generally eschews modern medicine? By your logic, I should.

        Should my Quaker friends be allowed to refuse to pay any monies that would go to the Department of Defense, since they are pacifists and would never serve in the military? Should Muslims and Jews refuse to pay any taxes that create food subsidies for un-kosher or halal foods, since they believe to consume them is wrong? Where does this end, exactly?

      • GiGi says:

        Abortion is legal in this country and, as citizens, we are entitled to legal medical care.

      • doofus says:

        “Then if I do not believe in abortion,I do not want my tax dollars going towards abortion services.”

        And I don’t want to pay for (read: have some of my taxes go toward) ANY churches’ use of gov’t services…which I DO, as they’re all tax exempt. Some of my taxes go toward making up what they DON’T pay. Bottom line is that everyone who pays taxes is funding at least ONE thing they don’t agree with.

        However, very little federal funding does go to abortion services…since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the pregnant woman.

        and there is an executive order signed by Obama in 2010 that prevents gov’t subsidies (like for the ACA) being used for abortions.

        ETA: oops, I see Sam has provided the Hyde info. and the “where does it end” question is what I meant about “everyone pays for SOMETHING they don’t agree with”, tax-wise.

      • Sal says:

        Steph unless you are personally paying the insurance payments, you are NOT paying for abortions.

      • mayamae says:

        Steph, I appreciate your passion, but I suggest you seek out “news” sources outside of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

    • lucy2 says:

      Perhaps we should start a religion where we say the Almighty declares no more than 2 children per couple, no one can get married before they turn 25, and every man woman and child has to get a buzz cut hairstyle. Then we’ll try to force those beliefs on the Duggars and see how they like it.

      • Steph says:

        Sam…..my tax dollars do go towards abortion and I don’t like it. Obamacare went around the Hyde amendment. Again, I would prefer that the government stay out of the personal lives of individuals. I do not like healthcare mandates…especially when I have to pay for something I will never use.

        As far as tax credits to churches,I think the tax system needs to be overhauled to remove all tax credits to churches and all special interest groups.

        The role of the Federal government was to protect the security of the American people…it was not designed to provide abortion on demand. If you want a nanny state move to Europe or Canada.

        I am a Libertarian and we will probably never see eye to eye on this subject. Sorry….we should probably end our discussion here:)

      • Sam says:

        Steph – do you have any evidence that Obamacare went around the Hyde Amendment? Because that claim has been evaluated and found to be false. Hyde is still dramatically in force (to the detriment of a lot of women). Obamacare has dramatically expanded Medicaid – which is still subject to the Hyde Amendment, so I can’t imagine how the expansion could be interpreted as weakening it.

        And I didn’t ask you about tax credits. I asked whether you would extend your own beliefs (that you should not have to pay for abortion services) to other people of faith who want their own beliefs respected. Since you didn’t answer, I’d have to presume that you think abortion is a special case in which people should be able to opt-out but all this other stuff should still go on.

      • Sal says:

        Boy, am I glad I live in a country with free unrestricted health care – Australia. The role of a Federal government should be to protect its citizens and to provide basic services ie health and education. Providing the most basic of citizens rights and services is so far from a nanny state. It amazes me how extremist some people can be, JUST because a govt provides a basic fundamental service. These peopele clearly don’t even know what an actual nanny state is. The most basic human right, is health care. The most fundamental basic first civil right, before all else. If a government can’t deliver that, then what is the purpose of a Federal government? Luckily I don’t have to worry about if I can afford health care or not, or go without medical treatment unlike Americans. I live in a first world civilised country that puts human health as civil right number one, and governmental number one priority and responsibility.

      • doofus says:

        “Obamacare went around the Hyde amendment.”

        except that it didn’t.

        “In fact, the new law states specifically that federal funds are not to be used for coverage of any other kinds of abortions, and that only premium dollars paid by individuals out of their own pockets may be used to pay for coverage of other kinds of abortions.”

        “What persuaded Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak and other anti-abortion Democrats in the House to vote for the Senate bill was President Obama’s pledge to sign an executive order reaffirming a federal ban on funding of abortion, as stated in the 1976 Hyde Amendment. That executive order, which Obama signed on March 24, also says that the secretary of Health and Human Services and the director of the Office of Management and Budget must come up with guidelines for states to use to determine whether insurance companies are properly following those separation-of-money requirements for plans purchased with the help of subsidies. And the federal officials must come up with those guidelines within 180 days. Individuals won’t start buying insurance through the exchanges until 2014.”


      • maybeiamcrazy says:

        @Sal Australian health care is really good. I live in Switzerland, our healthcare is highly supportive of every decision the woman makes about her pregnancy. We had a referandum this year about illegalization of abortion but thankfully we shut them down with a high voting rate. And then they tried to collect signatures but people didn’t sign. Those people always try, but at least in Switzerland public is consious enough not to let them get away with it.

      • Pepsi Presents...Coke says:

        How much time have you spent in Europe and Canada?

  25. aenflex says:

    A most foul representation of humanity. To believe what silly nonsense you want is one thing, but to indoctrinate a child, (or what, 20 in her case?), seems so unjust to me.
    There’s nothing past this, and I would give almost anything to see the looks on the faces when people realize it was all a lie. Not that it would ever happen. Just a pipe dream.

  26. Ms. Lib says:

    How funny! The Bud Light ad is at the bottom of the picture of these two racist/bigots.

  27. Abbicci says:

    Aren’t there currently some allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse by a leader of their own church?

    Maybe her next robo call should be about not going to churches where there are known abusers of young women.

    • Mon says:

      Or children… Guess that would not have left many places….

    • PortlandJan says:

      Actually there are TWO men that they follow, who have been accused of dodgy sexual practices. FIrst, there was Bill Gothard, founder of the Quiverfull movement, who has been accused of sexual harassment and unwanted, attempted sexual contact by no less than 35 young women. The number may have increased by now. He was forced from his position as head of his group, IBLP, and gave a non-apology claiming that his worst sin was playing favorites with the young women. The other is Doug Phillips, founder of Vision Forum which bit the dust late last year. He’s been hiding ever since from his former congregants. Phillips is being sued for sexual harassment by his former nanny,Lourdes Torres Manteufel. Mrs. Manteufel first fled the cult, then married a fellow escapee. Besides Mrs. Manteufel, some of Phillips’ most loyal adherents are either already suing him for abuse of power or thinking about doing so. Both of these men are loathsome predators, and I hope they get sued to smithereens.

      • Abbicci says:

        Thanks PortlandJan, I knew I recalled something but these people disgust me so much I couldn’t even gather the energy to google this crap. I knew a CB poster with a better memory than myself would have some details and names.Poster here never let me down. I appreciate it. It saved me from having to google swill and I will be eternally grateful.

  28. Steph says:

    All I can say is that I do have a problem with someone having the ability to select which restrooms and locker rooms they can use regardless of their genetalia.

    I have two young daughters and I do not feel comfortable with them showering in a locker room where there are exposed penises.

    No one should be discriminated against regarding employment,military etc… But I really do have a problem with accessibility of restrooms and locker rooms. This could easily be abused by perverts.

    To solve this problem create new facilities that accommodate both genders in addition to the male,female options,when constructing new buildings.

    • GiGi says:

      Not to be rude… but in what circumstance would your daughters be showering with biological men?

      Also – the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are people the victims know – in the child’s sphere of influence. And they groom these children. The rate of random sexual attacks on children is nil by comparison.

    • Sam says:

      Steph – your children, statistically speaking, have very little to fear from random people in a locker room. Sexual assaults and molestations by strangers are quite rare (but you wouldn’t know it from the media coverage). If its strictly a numbers game, your kids are far more at risk at home, in their schools and in other places where they know and trust people.

      You also completely misunderstand the law that’s been proposed. A trans woman is not a man masquerading as a woman. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have male-bodied parts. First, at least from the experience of my friends, a trans person is highly unlikely to walk around nude in the presence of strangers, largely because its dangerous FOR THEM. Trans people are well aware of the dangers they face and they are largely super-cautious and want to minimize their risk. Thus, the chances of a pre-op (since you focus on the genitals) trans woman feeling comfortable enough to drop her pants in front of your kids is, well, very, very low.

      Secondly, you sort of rely on the old idea that perverts would exploit this law to molest kids. Frankly, the concern is misplaced. A man who wishes to molest kids is highly unlikely to go through the trouble of pretending to be trans to gain access to a locker room or public space (given that molesting in a public place is generally a risky proposition for them). He’s far MORE likely to exploit the trust or innocence of children he already knows to abuse them – especially since that route offers privacy, emotional exploitation and continued access to the victims.

      • Steph says:

        I understand your concern but that does not change my views. My daughters as well as others have rights too…..why should they be forced into a situation where they are not comfortable?

      • Sal says:

        Steph did you read Sam’s post? Pre-op trans won’t be stripping naked so it won’t be an issue for your daughters. The only ones your daughters will see will be post-op, and that means they will all have female parts so your daughters won’t even know they are trans, because they will look just like they do.

      • doofus says:

        “why should they be forced into a situation where they are not comfortable? ”

        except that they probably wouldn’t be. first, they’d very likely not even know (as Sam points out) if they were in a public locker room with a transgendered person. being “uncomfortable” wouldn’t even be on their radar. To add, it’s likely YOUR prejudices that might make them “uncomfortable” in a situation like that. that is learned behavior.

        second, NO ONE IS FORCING THEM to be in a public locker room or restroom. people CHOOSE to enter those places.

        people who carry a gun openly into a public place, WHERE THEY’RE ALLOWED TO, make me uncomfortable. but they have the right to be there and the right to carry a firearm unconcealed. if I’m uncomfortable with that, I’d leave. people deal with “discomfort” every day in every place they go. someone’s right to be in a public place trumps someone’s rights to “feel comfortable”.

      • Sam says:

        Steph – this might sound harsh, but your discomfort doesn’t warrant legal protection. Many things make me uncomfortable, but that is not a legal reason to remove them. Public breastfeeding makes many people uncomfortable (and that is their preference) but we still have laws on the books that expressly protect the right to breastfeed in public. I sometimes go to a coffee shop that gives out day-old food to the homeless, so as a result, you’re often likely to see a homeless person or two milling about inside. Some of them, now and again, are dirty or muttering to themselves or something like that. That can make me uncomfortable sometimes, but since they are inviting the homeless in to eat, does my discomfort trump the rights of a person to be in a public space they were invited into? Discomfort has never been, nor should ever be, a reason to exclude anyone from a space.

      • Algernon says:


        But why should transgendered people be forced into a situation where they are not comfortable, too?

        I don’t know what the answer is except that at some point we have to accept that people are different, and differentness is okay. Otherwise we all just steep in our hate and distrust of those that are different, and frankly, I’m tired of it. I’m tired of the violence and fear and people dying and being hurt. perhaps, if you encountered a transwoman in the restroom (although how you would even know since she’d be using a stall anyway is beyond me), and found that she was just a nice person going about her day and not bothering you at all, you would see that there’s nothing to fear. If anything, it could be a moment to teach your daughters tolerance and acceptance, and that it’s okay that people are different.

        The problem, though, might be that you’re not interested in those things.

    • msw says:

      Or, you could just get over your irrational hang ups (which, seriously, don’t make a damn bit of sense) and accept that trans people have the same liberty as you to use their gender’s bathroom, instead of being othered into some non gender specific room they may not be comfortable with. You aren’t much of a libertarian if you don’t actually believe in freedom to make your own choices and want to relegate othe citizens to second class status. I am embarrassed for you.

    • GByeGirl says:

      Haha…you are not a very good libertarian if you want laws requiring penis checks before people enter locker rooms.

    • jwoolman says:

      Do women (birthright or converts) actually walk around naked in locker rooms and restrooms? Isn’t that a guy thing in US culture? Women’s restrooms have stalls with doors, not open urinals. Don’t know about female locker room habits in general, but I don’t recall any displays in high school or college. Showers had curtains for each stall. Everybody was covered outside them.

  29. JudyK says:

    That baby voice of hers (OMG, how that gets on my nerves) seems to match her baby brain.

  30. trillian says:

    I I lived in her town I would petition again religious extremism. Because won’t somebody think of the children??

  31. ToodySezHey says:

    Can we send these religious whackadoos back to England?

    • Chris says:

      Waaaaah! No!
      But I’ll say one thing for dear old Blighty….this lot wouldn’t stand a chance, not even in the party of Swivel-Eyed Loons/UKIP. Waving your (misread) bible as your defender is as effective as brandishing Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

  32. Duchess of Corolla says:

    I can’t even look at them. Especially her, with her truly crazy eyes.

  33. SpookySpooks says:

    They supported Rick Santorum who is Catholic ( even though, judging by his beliefs, he seems Protestant), but they hate Catholics and don’t think they’re actual Christians? I am confused.

  34. Deanne says:

    She doesn’t even live in Fayetetteville. This family disgusts me and the people who extole their “wholesome” values do as well. They are not wholesome. They are religious zealots who literally are part of a Christian cult. Their oldest son, despite his compkete lack of education, has a high position in a gay hate group and their daughter’s new fiance went on a rant about the Catholic religion and what Catholic’s belueve, that was filled with inacuracies and stupidity. When he received backlash, he deleted the post and ran away like the little boy that he is. Something I find ironic is that these people who are so in love with the King James version of the bible and all of it’s misogyny, are gay haters, King James was gay as has been historically noted.

  35. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    Ah..the truth is coming out…. Michelle wants some locker room action with hot football stars… and Dude with mega kids is gay as Christmas and closet deep as “Hoarders’ so he can’t neva come out of it.

  36. micky says:

    I absolutely agree with her. In a society we have to weigh everyone’s rights. Is it possible that child predators would use this law to gain access to children? Absolutely. Is it also possible that a transsexual may feel uncomfortable using a bathroom they prefer not use?Sure. I will take protecting children over making adults more comfortable any day.

    • Kiddo says:

      You do realize that there are predators within bathrooms of the same sex, right? Does that mean that no adults should be permitted to use bathrooms ever? Because that’s the path that follows your logic.

    • Mark says:

      And what about the female child predators, huh? … Do you think that only men can be child molesters? How about we just ban child predators from using public washrooms with children present? That would make more sense.

      • kri says:

        @Mark-you are quite correct. Unfortunately, our society doesn’t give female predators the same attention as male predators. I learned that the hard way as a little kid. This woman, who claims to be a Christian lacks understanding, empathy, and brains. Jesus turned away no one. The only people he ever called out were *drumroll please* HYPOCRITES! Yep. I believe the term is “whited sepulchres”. And this lady is exactly that. And also on a minor note..Jesus take the scissors to that hair. Please.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Here’s the thing: if someone is a child predator, they should be dealt with by the law. It is illogical to treat all transgender people as if they are child predators, and it will not prevent harm coming to children because of the loopholes Mark and Kiddo note above.

      Additionally, if she is worried about people with “past child predator convictions” as she says above, in many areas there are laws that prevent such people from even being at a pool/park/school/playground, much less use the rest room in those places. Ankle monitoring bracelets would do more to help in that area than this law.

      Even if you agree with her about protecting children, preventing legislation like this does not address the root of the real problem.

    • doofus says:

      “Is it possible that child predators would use this law to gain access to children?”

      child predators will use ANYTHING IN THEIR POWER to gain access to children.

      you know, like CHURCHES, or BOY SCOUTS, or TEAM SPORTS, or SCHOOLS and CAMPS. or one’s OWN FAMILY. which is where one usually finds them.

      I guess we need to ban ALL of those things, too.

      as for “weighing everyone’s rights”, I agree…and in this case, the right to public accommodations FOR ALL outweighs a few bigots’ “comfort”. to add, if you want to “protect” your children from a potential predator situation in the bathroom, GO IN WITH THEM. or, you know, pee at home.

      • Pepsi Presents...Coke says:

        What does being transgender have to do with molesters? As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of pedophiles happily cisgender and never mentioned feeling trapped inside the body of the opposite sex, not before, and not after that transition became popular. So, how did we ever invent this trope? Are we suggesting that since the dawn of time, every pedophile was unhappy in his or his body and had to sublimate that unhappiness by preying upon children? That doesn’t make sense. The people that are preying on children aren’t off peeing somewhere, they’re in your contact list.

      • doofus says:

        “What does being transgender have to do with molesters?”

        absolutely NOTHING, except in the eyes of uninformed bigots.

        there was a great South Park ep about the Boy Scouts and their banning of gay men as scout leaders. Big Gay Al was the Scout leader and the boys loved him because he was interesting and fun. but the parents in South Park were afraid because A GAY MAN! had “access” to their kids. so, they replace him with a buzz-cut military type who they KNOW isn’t gay…and he proceeds to take shirtless/naked pictures of the scouts.

        south park may be vulgar, but they have THE. MOST. APT. social commentary.

    • Chris says:

      So protect your own child! If for some reason it’s likely to be in a place where adults are naked (?????) then damn well go along too.
      I actually think adults’ rights trump children’s in some ways, because parents have responsibilities too, and I do not accept that I must step back into the gloom so that little Placenta is not traumatised.
      If we are worried that slack parents will not be on board, and of course that’s valid, why are these mixed-age situations allowed anyway? Surely all changing rooms are individual, not a free for all as in the 70s?!

  37. Mark says:

    Um… did she ever stop and think that FEMALE child predators will have no problem getting undressed next to her daughters at the local pool? Obviously she is just using that argument as an excuse to be a self-righteous hater.

  38. PortlandJan says:

    I am nowhere near as frightened of transgender people, as I am of the tribble colony propagating on her head. Fix your damn hair, Michelle! It looks like chewed-up Turkish Taffy.

  39. Mrs McCubbins says:

    Jim Bob or whatever his name is looks very much like the Crime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada. Same ideological religious beliefs as well.

  40. mayamae says:

    A couple of things. First, Michelle and the Gothard whackadoodles deny over population – it’s a myth. The entire population of the US can comfortably fit within the state of Florida. Right.

    Second, when Michelle sobbed heart brokenly and helped to deny that county liquor, she left her critically ill miracle, Josie, behind in the NICU. This woman does not pass up an opportunity for cameras.

  41. Annaloo. says:

    The opposite of “anti” is “pro”.

    How anyone would be “pro”- discrimination on any level is sad.

    And the constant implication that anyone who is gay, bisexual, transsexual or transgender has child sexual predatory inclinations is one of the most horrible out there. People who subscribe to this point of view truly need to get out of their bubble.

  42. Joh says:

    God was not on Michelle’s side because it passed.
    Fear and hate lost.
    But do not give up Michelle, there are still dollars to be made .

  43. bettyrose says:

    I don’t have any motivation to debate whether these people distort religion because religion has no place in politics. I respect all the religious and secular charitable institutions that do good in communities, and I know that many who identify as Christian have loving, charitable natures (unlike this loon) but I don’t want “good” religion mixed with politics either.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      Yeah this is pretty much how I feel. Separation of church and state. But it will never happen in this country.

      Honestly, the Duggars are idiots but there are religious people in a position of power who are actually directly impacting my reproductive rights and the civil rights of the LGBT community.

      I mean…does anyone really take these people seriously?

    • Ag says:

      somehow that isn’t the part of the constitution that has trickled down to the masses… instead we go insane over imagined infringements on the second amendment.

  44. Megan says:

    Why do people like the Duggars use their religion as an excuse to constantly talk about sex?

  45. Sal says:

    Oh my goodness I just noticed her bag and read what is printed on the side of it. Wow, she goes all out doesn’t she?

  46. kieraDax says:

    I’m not sure if someone has already said this (there are so many posts on this subject) but what struck me was, what does she think will happen if people vote no? I doubt there are specially designated transgender changing rooms and public toilets, so transgender people are currently using public facilities. Her argument about exposing her daughters to transgenders in changing rooms becomes null and void as voting no simply exposes her sons (if she has any) to the same thing. Dumbass!!!!! I am not religious, and proud of the fact. I thought the bible preached love thy neighbour, in my experience it is the religious people that practice this philosophy least. They are the most judgemental people I know, all because they read it in a book! Apologies to the religious none judgemental people out there.

    Rant over!!! :O

  47. Ag says:

    and, this is what their pastor has been up to. but i’m sure they won’t try to ban him from any place:

    • doofus says:

      It always seems to be the ones rallying against SINFUL BEHAVIOR! are the ones that are constantly engaging in it. as in “I’ll distract people from my own perverse behaviors by railing against them as a preacher”…hiding in plain sight, as it were.

      just like Larry “Wide Stance” Craig and his homophobic and bigoted legislating.

  48. SnarkGirl says:

    She needs to stay home, wait on her husband, and STFU.

    So says the very book she claims to base her life on. The Bible very clearly states that women are to stay silent and let their men do the talking. She also needs to stop cutting her hair, wearing mixed fabrics, and eating all shellfish and pork.

    Sorry Duggars, but if you’re going to use Leviticus to hate on LGBTQA people you need to follow ALL of it, not just the parts that condone your bigoted, hateful opinions.

  49. Lydia Says says:

    I can never understand why the media keep giving these vile people a platform to continue to spew their hate and ignorance. The Duggars are backwards, bigoted, misogynist pigs. How would they feel if someone told them to stop breeding like rabbits ? This family is very outspoken about what their backwards beliefs, but dismiss everyone else

  50. BunnyBabe says:

    Paging Duck Dynasty! One order of career suicide by extremism, coming right up!

  51. rlh says:

    Sorry, but I never bought how much they “love” their children. I remember when these people first appeared on tv. A few seasons in I watched their show for 8 to 10 minutes. That’s all I could take. I can’t tell you what happened; all I remember is there were allot of mattresses in their house. They were boring and their lives seemed dismal. I did not feel the love. I have always felt they were hideous for their mechanized baby making because the parents were never fully in charge of the babies they were popping out. That whole “buddy system” they used where the older kids had a few younger kids they were in charge of is, to me, a form of servitude. How do you love your children so much when you don’t really let them have a childhood. Clap trap and hooey disguised as religious beliefs. Ma and Pa Duggar are full of crap when it comes to love.
    Also, statistically speaking, at least 1 or 2 of those Duggar kids are gay. Now that is a show I would watch: Coming Out Duggar! I bet we would see how much they love their kids then.

  52. Lia says:

    If she cared that much about the world’s children she would keep her legs closed and quit breeding, adding to an already – overpopulated world. And, now, her offspring are going out and breeding themselves, making it worse. Shame on her. Maybe if she had a beer now and then she wouldn’t need to get so wound up over other peoples’ business.

  53. tarheel says:

    These people suck. Transgender folks already are killed and tormented more than any other demographic per capita as it is.

    • rlh says:

      Yep, you are correct. My mom did outreach work to the transgender community in her area through her church. She met allot of people she really liked. But she said they were some of the saddest most depressed people she had ever met because of the isolation.
      And Duggar’s, take note; my mom did outreach to transgendered people THROUGH HER CHURCH. That is called being a Christian.

  54. Tania2 says:

    why do these people feel so superior to someone who is gay or transgendered?

  55. Jaded says:

    Why on earth is this utterly anachronistic and hateful family allowed air time? I openly ask why in the name of sanity does The Learning Channel allow and profit from these people who are basically no different than Islamic fundamentalists or any other religion that preaches, no that demands, that the world take what their whackdoodle religion says as the only truth.

    This is why I am disgusted with TV programming that allows, and MAKES RICH these outlandish people with beliefs that are stuck in the 15th century. The “anything for a buck” mentality that is taking over reality TV saddens me because the general populous who watches this shite are clearly too lazy to do any kind of research or self-learning on the topic and make an informed decision. They just soak it up like it’s God’s truth and to hell with everyone else who may have a more educated take on the subject.

    No wonder why I rarely watch TV.

  56. Pepsi Presents...Coke says:

    ‘Greetings, friends. Do you wish to look as happy as me? Well, you’ve got the power inside you right now. So, use it, and send one dollar to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. Don’t delay, eternal happiness is just a dollar away.’

  57. OrangeBlohan says:

    Could somebody tell Michelle AKA crazy eyes, that most child molesters look like the guy next door, sort of like Jim Bob! Sick of these peeps and the Duck Dynasty bunch of whackados!

  58. GreenieWeenie says:

    This is dumb. She has probably already undressed next to someone formerly male, haha. And anyway, as a former swim team brat, I can attest to the fact that Americans in general don’t really wander about the locker room naked.

    I read about this in another interview where she said, “I still believe that we as a society put women and children first.”

    Um….only a woman who hasn’t spent a significant amount of time in the work force would say this. No, lady, I would not call American society one that puts women and children first. Ha. Try paid maternity leave, for starters.

  59. Tania2 says:

    Maybe the Duggars need to sit down and talk with some people who are transgendered. They will find out these people are not any more “evil” or bad than anyone else is. They are just ordinary people. They aren’t out to molest anyone’s kids, any more so than a strictly heterosexual person would be.