New Miss California Has Same Opinion As Old

Carrie Prejean was unceremoniously dumped as Miss California because she gave an answer to a question that was not satisfactory to the gay guy who asked it. She answered Perez Hilton’s question about marriage by saying she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. That answer is, no doubt, the reason she lost the Miss USA title. I know Donald Trump said differently but he is lying. The people involved are such unprofessional cowards that they did not even tell her she was fired. She found out when someone from the media called to get a comment from her.

The interesting thing is that Prejean gave the same answer that Barack Obama did when he faced a similar question. Joe Biden holds the same view as do many other liberals. The interesting thing is that the young lady who replaced Prejean, runner-up Tami Farrell, holds the same view:

[Prejean] went out and said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you share that view?”

Farrell responded in the affirmative with a simple, “Uh huh.”

“You do, OK,” said Cavuto.

Farrell quickly added: “I don’t think that I have the right or anybody has a right to tell somebody who they can or can’t love. And I think that this is a civil rights issue. And I think that the right thing to do is let the voters decide.” WND

So Big Dog, how do you say Prejean was fired for her answer when her replacement holds the same view?

The official story is that Prejean was fired by Trump because she did not live up to her contract. Prejean claims this is not true and that she followed the contract to the letter of the law. She also claims that the people who handled her (with regard to her obligations) were trying to get her to make appearances and do things that were objectionable to her. She claims that she was asked if she would do a semi-nude layout for Playboy and she said she did not want to do that and that they were trying to set her up to be fired.

She claims to have been asked to attend same sex partner rallies and other gay events. She stated that she did not think it was wise to do that because right now tensions are still pretty high. She did not say she would not do it at all. I agree with her, do it later when people are not in as much of a snit. She would go and get booed and they would make a scene in order to embarrass her and she knew that. It would appear as if the handlers were trying to get her fired.

People do not have to like the answer she gave but it was not a harsh answer and it was not a condemning answer. She answered it politely and she spoke her own truth. Whether one opposes gay marriage or not there was no reason for her to be treated this way. There was especially no reason for that limp wristed twit Hilton to treat her that way. Prejean could have slapped him from one side of California to the other but she did not.

Even in dismissal Prejean was pleasant and polite and she thanked the people involved and she even thanked Trump. She had a target on her back because she said the same thing Obama did but she is not a liberal.

I look for a lawsuit to come out of this and if all goes well she can put Trump in another bankruptcy.

As for Perez Hilton, if he does not like the answers then maybe he should slip into one of his dresses and enter the contest so he can answer the questions himself.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

32 Responses to “New Miss California Has Same Opinion As Old”

  1. FairestWitness says:

    I am so glad you wrote this, Big Dog. This whole brouhaha over Miss USA California’s views about homosexual marriage is a radical gay witch hunt. The vast majority of Americans are heterosexual and the vast majority of those heterosexuals are against gay marriage.

    Deviants like Perez Hilton need to accept the fact that their lifestyles are disgusting to most of us, even though they’re entitled to live that lifestyle. Their rights do not extend to legal marriage.

    As for Donald Trump, why in the world did he hire this asshole, Perez Hilton, to be a judge in a heterosexual beauty pageant? Perez Hilton, NOT Carrie Prejean, has brought dishonor to the Miss USA pageant. It was a dumb decision to ask this wacko gay activist to be a judge.

    • Blake says:

      What used to be a clean pageant dedicated to the most beautiful women in every state, has devolved into a PC event where at least one “special” group can push their little “pet” cause each year. The liberalism endemic in this event, as they say in California, gags me with a spoon.

  2. Macker says:

    I think I’ll borrow one of my favorite comment snippets which I regularly use on another blog when I want to say something really filled with vitriol:

    [Deleted]

  3. Big Dog says:

    Vitriol toward whom?

  4. Darrel says:

    BIGD: “because she gave an answer to a question that was not satisfactory to the gay guy who asked it.”>>

    DAR
    She was dumped because she was too incompetent to show up for her job. Your story, which is her story, makes no sense, and is clearly refuted by the fact (admitted in your title) that her replacement holds the same view. As judge Judy says, if it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t true.

    An interviewer asked her handler, why did they keep her on if they didn’t like her answer? Why drag it out and forgive her for the nudie pictures breech of contract if they wanted to dump her over her anti-gay answer? He responded: “it’s a mystery.”

    No, it’s not a mystery. She couldn’t show up for work and handle the job she agreed to do, and was obligated to do. And I don’t believe the unsourced claims about her being asked to do semi-nude pics or those other excuses. She wants to go on the anti-gay speaking tour so now she can. To no avail by the way.

    BIGD: “Even in dismissal Prejean was pleasant and polite…”

    DAR
    No, she immediately lied and blamed her firing on her answer rather than the easily documented fact that she repeatedly didn’t show up for work. That’s not pleasant or polite, it’s dishonest and cowardly.

    D.
    ———————
    Miss California Vows to Use Her Naked Breasts for Good

    Fight Against Gay Marriage Will Be ‘Tireless, Topless’

    “Just moments after being told she [lost] her beauty pageant crown, Miss California Carrie Prejean renewed her commitment to her mission, telling reporters, “From this day forward I promise I will use my naked breasts for good.”

    Ms. Prejean blasted the critics whom she claimed tried to silence her for her views on gay marriage, saying, “I intend to fight back with the two greatest weapons I have: my naked boobies.”

    The embattled pageant winner said she would be both “tireless and topless” in her efforts to fight same-sex unions.”

    Borowitzreport

    • Blake says:

      Its a he said/ she said regarding her duties- if her handlers (three of whom were allegedly gay- not that there is anything wrong with that) were asking her to do objectionable stuff- ( and the playboy spread was at least close to that) she had the right to say no, but there are consequences for this.
      I too see a lawsuit and she will come out of this okay.
      This points yet again to the hypocrisy on the left.

      • Darrel says:

        If you can verify this “playboy spread” claim, I’ll give you a goat. Delivery not included.

        I am quite sure the rules *do not* allow a Miss California to appear in such a magazine.

        You can be quite sure that they did not fire her without having a very good collection of breech of contract examples all lined up in a row. Which is to say, Trump would come out of a lawsuit quite “okay.”

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          Darrel, you called her a liar without anything to verify your claims. She is the one who said it and I will take her word over hers. There are reportedly emails that ask her if she will do a semi nude and she says are you trying to get me fired. If the emails exist then we will see them.

          If they do, you can keep your goat.

          She claims she went to everything she was contracted to do. You say she is lying because you do not like her answer.

          Her response to it was pleasant. We will see but there are over 70 emails that detail it.

          Better hope they don’t show what you say she lied about.

        • Darrel says:

          BIGD: “There are reportedly emails that ask her if she will do a semi nude…”>>

          DAR
          Here is a common sense explanation of this distortion. According to: “Keith Lewis, the executive director of K2 Productions, Prejean had requested to be notified of all offers for appearances.” (see FOX news reference on her wiki blurb)

          So the simple act of informing her of “all offers for appearances” does not mean she was asked, expected, required or *even permitted* to do them. That does not follow.

          She got fired, she’s embarrassed, so she and a bunch on the right are going to play this game that it was over her position on gay marriage. This is clearly ridiculous since, as you show, it’s the same position as Obama, Biden, half the state AND even her replacement. If they wanted her gone they could have let her go when the nudie picture flap broke. But they didn’t, they kept her.

          Bigd: “She claims she went to everything she was contracted to do.”>>

          DAR
          Yes she does. But the chance of that being true is precisely zero. We shall see. It may be the case that her contract lets her be fired for any reason. I guarantee, because of the media storm they knew would come, they will have a nice tidy list of examples of her not doing what she was contracted to do.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          Darrel- Do you overnite a goat, or send it regular snail mail?

        • Blake says:

          I think that this is vastly unfair to claim that she is a liar, D- when you have no substantiation of your claim.
          Personally, she says it, so i tend to say that I’ll believe her until the e- mails prove otherwise. I am rather surprised someone as open minded as you would sop hurriedly condemn her. Could that be because of her stance on issues? If so, you are a hypocrite for automatically assuming her guilt.
          At this point no one knows for sure, so keep an open mind. Isn’t that what an American would do?

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Do you overnite a goat, or send it regular snail mail?”>>

          DAR
          I don’t care how you transport the goat, should you try to win the prize, by backing up your claim that they asked “her to do objectional stuff” like “the playboy spread…”

          Best to not count yer goats before you earn ’em. Don’t get your hopes up on this one.

          As to her honesty, she blew that when she covered up the fact that she had taken topless pictures.

          Tastefully censored for your protection.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          And you cite the Borowitz Report? Now just WHO has the brains of a valley girl? Really?

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: And you cite the Borowitz Report?>>

          DAR
          Dear Blake, The Borowitz Report is a satrical site and the bit about “Miss California Vowing” to “Use Her Naked Breasts for Good” is… comedy.

          BLK: “Now just WHO has the brains of a valley girl?”>>

          DAR
          I think you just gave us the answer to that question.

          BLK: “Really?”>>

          DAR
          Yes, really.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          Darrel, you are not known for comedy, even second hand, so do not cite Borowitz in a serious discussion- it make you look facetious.

  5. Barbara says:

    Thank God that Miss California had the guts to stand up for her beliefs even if it meant losing the crown. Some people would have kissed Perez’s rear to get the crown. She was courageous and I admire her. This world need more people like her.

  6. Darrel says:

    What Prejean said on a radio show when she found out she was canned:

    “And I started to laugh because everyone’s been cooperating and everyone’s been getting along so well,” she said. “This is the first that I’ve heard of it. This is funny to me. I have no idea what’s going on.”

    vs.

    What Prejean said, verbatim, in an email to Keith Lewis, the executive director of K2 Productions (basically her boss below Trump):

    “You do not cooperate with me, and you pick and chose [sic] the things you want me to do. That is not happening anymore. Stop speaking for me. I have my own voice.”

    –Carrie Prejean (Wednesday, June 10, 2009). “TRANSCRIPT: E-mails Between Carrie Prejean and Keith Lewis”. Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525726,00.html.

    DAR
    But… “everyone’s been cooperating and… getting along so well,”

    And she tells her boss, who’s responsibility it is to pick and choose what events Miss California is supposed to do, “that is not happening anymore.”

    Right.

    D.

    • Big Dog says:

      Like I said, she was classy. Instead of bashing those with whom she worked, she said they were getting along well.

      And you would do well to wait until all 70 emails are released. They are way too easy to take out of context.

      • Darrel says:

        BIGD: “Instead of bashing those with whom she worked, she said they were getting along well.”>>

        DAR
        Which was a lie. See the transcript of the text to her boss.

        And saying you were fired because you gave your opinion in an answer, is bash and lie about everyone involved.

        When Trump made the decision to not fire her for the nudie pictures he specifically said her answer was not bad, and not relevant:

        “It wasn’t a bad answer, that was simply her belief.”

        And: “It’s the same answer that the President of the United States gave. She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.”

        Now he says he is firing her because she wouldn’t fulfill her contract and do her job. There is no sensible reason/motive to think he is lying about this and lots of reason to think Prejean is. Her story makes no sense. See the title of your thread.

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          I know you believe all that has taken place is her fault and you would have believed it no matter what. Let’s see what comes of it first and then see. Not all of the emails were released so we shall see. I believe her when she said she was fulfilling her contract.

          Besides, the nudie pics happened before she was Miss California. Yeah, I guess they could have fired her but how is it relevant. Trump will say anything. He needs the publicity. I think she was fired because of the uproar over her answer and the way that faggot Hilton reacted to her. But we will see.

        • Darrel says:

          BIGD: “you believe all that has taken place is her fault and you would have believed it no matter what.>>

          DAR
          No, I only believe the part about her not doing her job is her fault. If she had done her job, as she had agreed to do, Trump wouldn’t have fired her. It makes no sense for him to fire her if she had been willing to do her job. In the email transcript I already cited, she states, she is not going to do her job.

          D.

  7. Big Dog says:

    So she held the views of all those folks then why was she the only one attacked?

    They needed an excuse and they fabricated one.

    We will see.

    • Darrel says:

      Because most people are smart enough to state their bigotry a little more carefully.

      Prejean, not so smart.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        How is it bigotry to state that you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? That is actually the definition of marriage. How is it bigotry? If a person said they believed that people should not be allowed to marry animals would they be bigots?

        The bigots are people like you who try to force a religious institution to accept the things that it does not believe in. Civil Unions are just as good as marriage and lawyers can make sure estates are set up properly. There is no difference.

        If you mean that Obama, Biden et al are not taken to task because they hide their bigotries better you are delusional. They were quite open about it. The reason they get a pass is that they are liberals. The liberals are full of bigots who constantly berate others but they get a pass.

        • Darrel says:

          BigD: “If a person said they believed that people should not be allowed to marry animals would they be bigots?”>>

          DAR
          No. Animals do not have equal rights or equal protection under the law. Humans do. All of them.

          To say blacks should have to ride on the back of the bus, is bigotry. There were no good arguments for why blacks should not have full and equal rights and now even the conservatives have been dragged into accepting this.

          To say left-handed persons should have to drink from a different water fountain, is bigotry. There are no good arguments for why left handed persons should not have full and equal rights, and since there are no religious edicts against left handedness, no one has had much of a problem with this and we let them drink freely.

          To say women should not be able to vote, is bigotry. There were no good arguments for why women should not have full and equal rights and now, except for a few Bill O’Reilly viewers, pretty much everyone accepts this.

          To say two adult human beings can marry each other, yet another two adult human beings cannot marry each other, is bigotry. There are *no* good arguments for why gays/lesbians should not have full and equal rights before the law and soon this will be as obvious as the above examples are.

          BigD: “The bigots are people like you who try to force a religious institution to accept… things>>

          DAR
          Nonsense. Churches can do whatever hocus pocus ceremonies they want, or not. Doesn’t matter, don’t care. What matters is the government license and the legal rights it confers.

          Bigd: Civil Unions are just as good as marriage… There is no difference.>>

          DAR
          If there is no difference then let them marry. After all, “there is no difference” right? Lets roast that one now:

          ***
          “The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.” Link
          ***

          DAR
          You can observe the rapid growth in support for gay marriage, state by state, in each age group, <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/gay-marriage-state-by-state-tipping.html"here

          It’ll all be over soon and you guys can go on to hating and trying to suppress the rights of the next group wanting equal rights. Probably… the atheists!

          D.
          ——————–
          “Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity.” –George Bernard Shaw

        • Tamara says:

          BD: How is it bigotry to state that you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? That is actually the definition of marriage.

          Tam: That is only ONE definition of the word marriage. There is also:
          “a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife” or “any close or intimate association or union” etc, etc.

          But people with an agenda against equal rights for homosexuals only focus on that ONE definition in order to alienate, punish and keep homosexuals from an opportunity to enjoy one of our society’s most cherished event. It is so obviously unfair.

          BD: How is it bigotry?

          Tam: Bigotry is all about discrimination. When one group of people decides that another group of people should not be allowed the same rights and privileges as them even though those people have committed no crime that is bigotry. There is no genuine, logical reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry so it comes down to only emotional reasons of dislike or distaste, which is unjust.

          BD: The bigots are people like you who try to force a religious institution to accept the things that it does not believe in.

          Tam: That doesn’t make any sense. Gay people can be married outside of the church just like I was. When I got married outside the church how did that have any affect on religious institutions? Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t be allowed to be married because I wanted to be married without religious involvement?

          BD: Civil Unions are just as good as marriage and lawyers can make sure estates are set up properly. There is no difference.

          Tam: That’s not true. The law does not automatically treat both the same, do some research before posting assumptions. Also, as Darrel said if it’s just as good why not let them get married if it isn’t simply an issue of prejudice?

        • Blake says:

          Tamara- Civil unions are as good as marriage, and I do not see how trying to force a square peg into a round hole helps anything, Gays and their supporters went about this the wrong way, in that they deliberately poked a finger in the eye of the religious community by confronting this problem head on. If gays had said “Civil unions are Okay, ” then perhaps the furor would have subsided, and the religious community, seeing that everything did not fall apart, might have relented at a later date. Now people’s positions have hardened, and no one’s budging.
          Is this a good thing?

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Civil unions are as good as marriage,…>>

          DAR
          “The California Supreme Court, in the In Re Marriage Cases decision, noted nine differences in state law.”

          http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s147999.pdf

          Those were just the really big ones. There are dozens more.

          BLK: “and I do not see how trying to force a square peg into a round hole helps anything,…>

          DAR
          For more on the square peg thing, I strongly recommend this video clip: “What About Gay Marriage?

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMSrEiPl5vY

          Under three minutes, good stuff.

          BLK”: the religious community, seeing that everything did not fall apart, might have relented at a later date.>>

          DAR
          They can already see that everything did not fall apart. For the lowest divorce rates, look to the first gay marriage state, Massachusetts. For the highest divorce rates, look to the Bible belt, Oklahoma. Canada did it nation wide in 2005. Etc.

          BLK: Now people’s positions have hardened, and no one’s budging.>>

          DAR
          Doesn’t matter. The kiddies think it is the equivalent of being left handed. Novel, a little queer perhaps, but no big deal. The children are the future.

          In a few years all of this concern will look as silly as the Christians who fought against women being allowed to wear pants.

          I’m not making that up. I have a church pamphlet I picked up entitled: “Pantsuits and the Christian Woman.”

          I should scan it in some day and post it.

          Why are conservatives always on the wrong side of these social issues?

          D.

      • Blake says:

        It is bigotry in your mind, in your opinion- it is not necessarily so, though, but an opinion that expressed her belief.
        Sure she cold have waffled like some spineless liberal (not that there is anything wrong with that), but she was asked a question and answered according to her beliefs. And now she is being persecuted for them.
        Such nice, understanding little minded liberals with their pitchforks- and you wonder why we call you hypocrites? Look in the mirror.

        • Tamara says:

          Blake said: Tamara- Civil unions are as good as marriage,

          Tam: That is not true as civil unions do not afford couples the same rights as married couples. See Darrel’s post above for some details.

          Blake: and I do not see how trying to force a square peg into a round hole helps anything,

          Tam: What is wrong with human beings wanting to have the same rights as other human beings? Your square peg/round hole statement just shows that you’re prejudiced.

          Blake: Gays and their supporters went about this the wrong way, in that they deliberately poked a finger in the eye of the religious community by confronting this problem head on.

          Tam: Gays and their supporters shouldn’t have to pander to any group for equality. When your rights are being squandered that is the exact time that you should confront the problem head on. Why should they have to tiptoe around like second class citizens? Outrageous!

          Blake: If gays had said “Civil unions are Okay, ” then perhaps the furor would have subsided,

          Tam: Again, why should homosexual people be forced to accept a lesser marriage than what heterosexuals can have? Anytime minorities have been persecuted for their differences and have stood up for their rights there has been a furor. Just because equality makes some people uncomfortable does not make it wrong.

          Blake: Now people’s positions have hardened, and no one’s budging.
          Is this a good thing?

          Tam: Hardened people are never a good thing but this is the problem of those who are hard not the other way around. It will all be resolved eventually because younger people are not typically prejudiced against homosexuality. So once enough old bigots have died off the balance will shift. Just like when the black people were after equal rights, and women, and so on, and so on…