Miss Beverly Hills Lauren Ashley Wants Gays Put to Death (Updated)
Miss Beverly Hills Lauren Ashley
Via ThinkProgress comes another story of a blonde, California beauty queen speaking out about her hatred of gays a la Carrie Prejean.
This time, the vitriol is coming from a teenager with a porn star name, Miss Beverly Hills Lauren Ashley. Ashley is vying to hold the same Miss California crown once held by Prejean (before it was yanked away because of “contract violations” – the nude photos, fake boobs, and hatred of a portion of the population was OK with officials, apparently).
Ashley is going one step further than Prejean, however, who said she didn’t believe in gay marriage. No, she thinks that they should just die: “The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white.”
Of course, she used the time-honored justification of bigots everywhere, telling Fox News (where else) that she has a lot of friends who are gay. I’m guessing they’re not close friends, though, since she’s apparently just waiting out the minutes until God offs them.
Prejean got all the way to the Miss USA pageant before going public with her views. Here’s hoping that by spewing all this anti-gay stuff early on, Ashley has damned her chances.
*UPDATE: See my new post about how “Miss Beverly Hills” is a made-up title.
More on True/Slant Right Now
-
-
Related streams
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
The Bible does say that, though. Are you saying that she can’t have religious beliefs?
You are an idiot.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Bible says lots of things that aren’t applicable to modern times – for example, her father would be completely justified in certain instances for selling her into slavery. Would you OK that just because he was allowed to have religious beliefs? I’m guessing not.
Also, the hypocrisy of claiming to have gay friends while simultaneously expressing a belief that they should die deserves to be pointed out.
I think maybe you’ve mistook me. No, I don’t think her father selling her into slavery would be a good thing regardless of it being in the Bible. I don’t think it’s a good thing to have faith in God, or to allow the views attributed to a fictional character (Jesus) to dominate your life. But we’ve apparently decided, as a society, that it’s completely legitimate to set some propositions completely outside the realm of skeptical inquiry, when we can call those propositions “religious.”
What you’re saying is that you, you personally, can tell her which parts of the Bible “aren’t applicable to modern times” and which are. But the problem here is that she obviously doesn’t think that part of the Bible isn’t applicable. (Remember that the Bible itself says that it all applies, even in our “modern times.) She thinks, in fact, that it does very much apply to our modern times, or at the very least – the fact that God wanted gay people stoned to death in ancient times suggests that maybe He’s of a dim opinion of homosexuality even today.
I find that about as abhorrent as you do. But that’s pretty clearly what the Bible says. If a person has, at the outset, decided to go with the Bible, that’s something they have to believe. The Bible itself is pretty clear about that.
If we’re going to let people have religious beliefs dictate their stances on the issues, you’re going to have to grapple with the fact that a lot of religions pretty clearly take stances you don’t like.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Jewish Philosopher Maimonides once said that the Bible is truth. However, if there are other fundamental truths that appear to contradict the Bible, then you must be interpreting the Bible incorrectly.
Most of today’s faiths take an interpretive stance to biblical text. Those that do not often lead people to absolutist cult-like behavior. Those are the dangerous religions of the world.
The stance of a death penalty to homosexual people would seem to be outrageous and extreme. Those who cite this as a fundamental truth must be interpreting it incorrectly.
In response to another comment. See in context »But she’s not literally saying she wants to kill gay people. She’s saying that’s the penalty for homosexuality as prescribed by the Bible. And it is! What she’s saying is that she takes that prescription not as something to be followed in our “modern times”, just like we don’t follow the slavery thing; but that it’s in there at all indicates the extent of her God’s disfavor of homosexuality, homosexuals, and homosexual relationships.
And, hey, that’s her religion. From what basis are any of you going to say she’s doing it wrong?
In response to another comment. See in context »As a long time resident of Beverly Hills, I feel that it is unconscionable for this woman to use our city’s good name, a city that is known for tolerance, and indeed acceptance, of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens from ALL walks of life, in order to garner herself a few minutes of the fame she quite clearly is so desperate to taste.
Perhaps Ms. Ashley just crawled out from under a rock or something and has not heard that last year’s Miss Homophobe USA, Carrie Prejean, did not fare so well in trying to make a career out of walking around in a bikini while wearing a crown of thorns.
But it is all of us as a society that tolerate this very public bashing of our very own gay offspring who should look into our own hearts and ask ourselves how and why we are turning out young people who believe that only ‘certain people’ should be held accountable to biblical law in a secular world.
If we are going to expect our gay children to live under biblical law, should we not require biblical law for all heterosexuals as well? Or would that leave us ALL dead by stoning??? Indeed.
Regardless of your own personal religious views, is it not time for us to STOP this absolutely unjustifiable ABUSE of our gay offspring?
It is wrong and immoral.
No matter what God tells you.
Lovely Lauren Ashley is feisty, forthright, & fabulous. What a beauty! Of course, she will be attacked by the hysterical fringe because she is openly straight. She has a bright future in politics.
You couldn’t do journalism if you tried. Ms. Prejean was simply asked her opinion and she honestly gave it; that is not hate. She did not degrade or attack gays as you have hypocritically attacked Ms. Ashley with your porn star slander. Also, check some facts: Prejean did not “go public,” she was asked a question. The topic would have never came up if that ignorant Hilton hadn’t opened his mouth and asked. Get a life.
“I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone…If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.”
Oh we have another Carrie Prejean story? Gee. Opinions: http://bit.ly/laura-ashley-under-fire
glad to see you are keeping the journalistic tradition alive. that being using bogus headlines to further your own cause and ideals. where exactly did she say that gays should be put to death? i see a bible quote there which isn’t really the best way to go on her part (almost as silly as quoting, say, true/slant), but i failed to see “i think gays should be put to death” or anything along those lines. could this be an issue of you attempting to slander someone simply because you don’t agree with them? perhaps.
must you really resort to such shameful tactics? surely there is an open, honest and legitimate way to get your message across?
honestly, what you are doing is CREATING “news” that suits you and the majority of your readers and it is despicable.
all this so called “beauty queen” did was quote what she has been taught her entire life. in her eyes, the book she is quoting is “truth” and the “divine word of god”. that being what it is, she is simply stating her OPINION (remember those? you know, what we are all supposed to be entitled to) of the way things are supposed to be based on what is likely a lifetime of being raised under the christian faith. does that make her right? no, absolutely not. she is, however, far less wrong than you are in this particular instance. she is simply sticking to her faith whereas you are distorting her comments for personal gain.
or, to put it another way, you are both idiots but at least her idiocy is not malicious and self serving.
how about contributing something NEW to journalism? a bit of honesty maybe.