wants ESPN’s Broussard suspended over remarks on homosexuality seems to be having difficulty doing just that: moving on. The lefty clowns have launched a petition to get ESPN writer Chris Broussard suspended over his belief that homosexuality is “walking in open rebellion to God and Jesus Christ”:

Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 9.54.44 AM

Contrary to what would have followers believe, Broussard actually takes a decidedly diplomatic approach when it comes to discussing the morality of homosexuality. What a shame MoveOn can’t be bothered to show the same civility.



#FireChrisBroussard: ESPN writer slammed for calling gay lifestyle ‘open rebellion to God’

  • Jack Deth

    So, according to liberal mantra, “Democracy” is now a lynch mob?

    • TomJB

      Always has been. See: French Revolution

      • Karl Winrich

        Tom, I think that’s the best way I’ve heard it stated as to what is happening in our government right now. Why yes, it does sound a lot like the French Revolution, just currently without the guillotines.

        • TomJB

          Yes it does. Our founders actually included checks and balances in the Constitution against “the mob.” The only popularly elected representatives we were to have in the federal government were the members of the House of Representatives (imagine that :) Senators were supposed to represent the states and the President was supposed to be equally representative of the people and the states, hence neither was elected by popular vote.

          Also, it takes a minimum of 6 years to completely turn over our elected branches of government; this was done to avoid the possibility of a populist with pie-in-the-sky rhetoric to charm the people into voting them into office and realizing too late that all is not what was promised – the Senate’s 6-year terms guaranteed that no majority could be had in a single election by a completely new party – and the SCOTUS appointments made sure a longer-term anchor was available as well.

          Finally, the ultimate check was the amendment process, where it requires 75% of the state legislatures from changing the Constitution – the 12 most popular states comprise almost 60% of the US population and even if 100% of them wanted to block a change, they would be powerless if 50%+1 of the reps of each of the other 38 states said they wanted something changed. In the other direction, the state reps of 50%+1 of each of the 13 least populous states (about 13.6 million Americans) could block an amendment that the other 300 million of us wanted.

          EDITED to read a little easier

          • Karl Winrich

            Our founding fathers were Statesmen, but what we have now days are just career politicians.

    • Elaine

      Always have been bullies and antagonists! Good thing they are a NON PARTISAN, non-profit organization. The MoveOn family of organizations is not-for-profit organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues. HAHAHAHA Right?

      • Karl Winrich

        Oh yea, that wonderful non-partisan, non-profit organization funded by George Soros, foreign billionaire investor, avowed marxist, and a man whom absolutely wants to destroy America as she is.

  • Marcy Cook

    Hey Move on….how about respecting a person’s religious beliefs? Or is that only for everyone but Christians?

    • J. Cox

      Double standards are the norm for progs.I would expect nothing less than them wanting to silence any who disagree with them.It is so cute too when they attempt to use the Bible as justification.

    • william seaman

      If Chris’ name was Kah’leed Sa’leem-Muhammed there wouldn’t be an issue.

    • Frank Drebin

      How is MoveOn any different from any other oppressive hate group?

      • alanstorm

        Some questions just answer themselves, don’t they?

  • N3al

    i applaud Broussard for the strength of his convictions. I happen to agree with him wholly. the world is way too full of cultural “Christians” who live in a way totally at odds with a Christian life as defined by Christ in the Bible, but still call themselves Christians. I would be fine with Collins declaring his homosexuality; I can’t tell him how to live. But when he attempts to reconcile it within the context of a Christian life, that crosses a line with me. I wish he’d NOT come out as being a Christian because frankly, Christians live their lives in a very different way.

    Christians-real Christians-are all in.

    Do not take that as me saying that I think I’m perfect. I’m far from it. I believe the difference is that I acknowledge my imperfection and seek to reconcile with God and through grace I don’t deserve, receive forgiveness. I will never attempt to take what is clearly defined in scripture and declare it to be okay in God’s eyes when it is not. And frankly, it’s pseudo-Christians who are giving Christianity a bad name.

    If they are making a choice to live their lives blatantly outside Christian principles, I can’t do anything about that. But contorting Christianity to be okay with it, sorry. No can do. There’s way too much of that going on already.

    • b_truit

      You sir are correct. God bless you

    • Ben Bollman

      Yep, I actually just got done commenting to one of these pseudo-Christians. He said he didn’t think homosexuality is a sin and God or Jesus wouldn’t mind. I told him that luckily for us actual Christians we don’t have to project our own feelings onto what God and Jesus want, it is there in the Bible in black and white whether you agree with it or not. That’s not to say they would condone mistreating these people. Love the people, hate the sin. But you can’t twist God’s words to make it seem like what you are doing is not a sin.

      • Guest

        How extraordinary that must be; to never have to guess!!To have a moral guide to lay out right and wrong for you with no gray areas. “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)” Does this mean I can finally open my sex slave business and still reserve my place in Heaven?

        • Bobby

          Your response is humorous. Why do people like you always use the OLD testament as the basis of your points that really aren’t points? If you actually knew anything of what you spoke of then you would know that after Christ came a NEW covenant was made. One that frees everyone from those laws they used way back when. I could keep going deeper into all of this, but you should do some more research before posting again.

          • Ben Bollman

            It is because it is easier to read out of context passages off of an atheist website than read the whole Bible in context. What courage this rebel who has proclaimed himself “Guest” must be to talk ignorantly about a topic he knows absolutely nothing about. Let’s all give him a little pat on his precious head.

          • Old Grey Fox

            Yes, Ben…bless his (guest) little heart. He just doesn’t know any better. Poor thing.

  • AaronHarrisinAlaska

    Since when did moveon get to decide what a constitutes a representation of the faith?

    • TocksNedlog was formed in 1998 in response to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton by the U.S. House of Representatives. They started by passing around a petition asking Congress to “censure President Clinton and move on”, as opposed to impeaching him.
      — So yeah, since then ^^^.

  • Shawn Smith

    “Tolerance” apparently means “anyone who thinks differently than me must be silenced.”

    Paging George Orwell.

    • Shawn Smith

      While we’re on the Orwellian subject, “reproductive rights” is an odd phrase. Abortion, homosexuality, free birth control (even if it violates conscience). It seems to apply exclusively to wanting to *not* reproduce.

      • ZoriahShepard

        Thank you! When did abortion become synonymous with reproduction. That’s lunacy! But that’s the Liberal side for you.

  • capisce

    Homosexuality – love it or else!

    Even having no opinion is not good enough
    In a Tuesday column, Rosenbloom publicly “outed” Chicago Bears linebacker Lance Briggs for having the gall to not express an opinion on the Collins episode

    • James Poli

      Please tell me that is satire. Please…..

  • $30423294

    Hey ESPN, the rest of America is waiting to find out if you cave in to the thugs at “move on”. Your decision will clarify things greatly for all of us.

    Your move, ESPN.

  • BlahBlah

    This just in: changed its name to DeadHorse.beat

    • therantinggeek


    • TugboatPhil


      • BlahBlah


  • CR

    Oh scr*w it, I’m tired of all these petitions and boycotts and attempts to get stupid laws through. Let’s just cut out the endgame and incremental steps and have the constitutional convention already.

    We can get it over with, rewrite the first amendment to say you have the freedom of speech to express liberal ideas and practice only non-Christian religions, and get rid of the second amendment entirely. Maybe the new second amendment can read “You have the right to free, tax-payer funded access to abortion up until the child’s second birthday as long as no gun is ever used.”

  • Clayton Grant

    MoveOn needs to try living up to their name for once and just move on.

    • TomJB

      They can’t. Their entire reason for coming into existence was to “move on” from the allegations of President Clinton’s oval office indiscretions, even though that was not the basis of his impeachment. They also got stuck in November 2000 for about 8 years.

      If its spams unrealized self-irony and tweets unrealized self-irony, maybe they are actually clueless.

  • TugboatPhil

    Hey, Move On, why don’t you? Remember how you started up to get people to move on from Bill Clinton’s Oval Office sexcapades and possible raping?

  • Paul Costello

    Political correctness is intended to stifle free speech, not promote harmony; and crosses cultural, religious, and even intellectual bounds. It began with some perceived right ‘not to be offended’ — though I can locate no such right in the Constitution. Thus:

    People who are concerned about the many problems illegal immigration brings, and want secure borders, are considered racist – because somehow the concerns about the one are translated into a bias against Latinos.

    Those who question the current global warming hysteria, and “refuse to join the fight,” have been likened to Hitler and others. Those who question the veracity of global warming have also been likened to Holocaust Deniers.

    The people who fear the encroaching Islamic jihad are called Islamophobic. Those who speak about or discuss the negative and frightening aspects of Islam are accused of religious intolerance, or xenophobia, and are accused of hating all Muslims and all of Arab descent.

    To think a certain way, and to publicize those thoughts, when not censured due to political correctness, and the fear that it might incite violence, “hurt someone’s feelings” or put someone in a bad light, even if justified, has become a crime. Such nonsense is being bolstered by the judicial system; with the effect that rational dialogue on a number of issues is being quashed.

    There is a real danger in censuring thought and the verbal or written expression of it. We are quickly moving into an Orwellian society. What many in the United States and other Western nations don’t seem to understand yet, when some ideas are censured, others will surely follow. This excludes those who are waging jihad against us, because they clearly understand that. It is their purpose to quash anything that may be perceived as derogatory.

    Basically, what has already happened in Europe, Australia and Canada (all which used to have the freedom to express one’s thoughts and ideas), is happening here in the United States. To think a certain way, and to express those thoughts, are fast becoming crimes – or dangerous. Making a statement of fact, if it wounds someone’s sensibilities, can be cause to be fired, fined, and perhaps even jailed. In some cases, people sometimes actually fear for their lives due to community response.

    Take, for example, what happened to a teacher several years ago when, during a public forum, he explained that at his school, it was the male black teenage boys who were causing the bulk of the problems. The audience was aghast, and he was promptly accused of racism. He lost his job, and the media had a field day with him. Ultimately, he was vindicated, but the whole event made one thing clear – even if it was the truth, substantiated by facts, making such a statement could be dangerous and have severe consequences.

    It wasn’t politically correct to state, or even imply, that one group was causing problems over another, even if it was true. Rather than being a statement of fact, which it was, it was seen as racist. Which is what has happened with illegal immigration. Rather than recognizing that people are concerned about illegal immigration, which coincidentally happens to be primarily from Mexico, it becomes an indictment of all Latinos.

    Public opinion isn’t always right. What is right, however, is to uphold and defend our Constitutionally-protected First Amendment right of Free Speech – the expression of our thoughts. Our country was founded on controversy. We broke from the subservience of European thought and edicts when we became a free nation. If we don’t fight for this right on every front, for the right to express our thoughts, we will lose it. It will slip away, unnoticed by many until it’s too late – and the expressions of our thoughts, our words, and our every deed, will be governed by whoever is in power.

  • Doug Payton

    The irony here is that MoveOn came into being specifically for trying to get the nation to “move on” from the sexual acts of President Clinton, which they said were private and none our business. Yet now, they are castigating you if you *don’t* agree with making someone’s sex life public.

    • TocksNedlog

      Actually, they’re being remarkably consistent —
      in a morally relativistic, “anything goes!” kinda way.

  • CatHerder

    Tell it to the Muslims, why don’t you.

  • Chip

    Free speech for thee but not for me?

    • TocksNedlog


  • Garth Haycock

    I would advise MMA to take a look at a little law with which they aren’t very familiar, known as the 1st Amendment and realize that it’s there for everyone, especially those with whom they disagree.

  • Stupid Republic

    The part that really bugs me is that for years, these moonbats have whined and moaned that Republicans wanted to regulate what goes on in the bedroom.

    Personally, I could care less what goes on in your bedroom, whether it’s with whom you sleep with or whether you watch Bonanza reruns on TV Land. If you want us to stay out of the bedroom, please stop flaunting your bedroom activities in our faces.

  • Doxy, Interrupted

    So the general consensus here is this is wrong; but suspending and dropping Rob Parker was the right move for ESPN. Interesting. I personally feel they both deserve it But to each their own, I suppose.

    • TocksNedlog

      Apple, meet orange.

      • Doxy, Interrupted

        Interesting that you think so.. Rob Parker was displaying his personal opinion, as retched as some may find it (myself included) and as politically incorrect as it may be, one could still argue he has the right to think it and/or speak it. Should he say it on a show to a national audience on ESPN? No. He shouldn’t. Does Chris Broussard have the right to his opinion? Absolutely. Should he have the ability to voice it on ESPN? Probably not. Seems to me both of these men did something similar; and those defending him and slaying Parker are doing the same thing they claim the awful liberals do: calling out whoever shares a different opinion then themselves as wrong and stupid.

        • TocksNedlog

          There’s a difference between saying someone is failing to follow God’s teachings and saying that someone isn’t being a good n*gga.

          • Doxy, Interrupted

            Still sounds like freedom of speech (and freedom of religion…) to me either way. Only difference is one is in line with what you believe… and the other is not.

          • Doxy, Interrupted

            At the end of the day, you either support ALL forms of free speech, or you support that there are opinions that need be stated on a national stage. You don’t get to draw that line of what’s acceptable and what isn’t for everyone else; based primarily on your personal beliefs. Well, you CAN draw that line, but you end up looking like a complete hypocrite.

          • TocksNedlog

            I like drawing the line at ‘no black person should be required to toe the Democratic Party line’.

        • Robby Gregg

          Rob Parker had done way more than just saying stuff about rg3 though

  • bicentennialguy

    F Broussard did not single out homosexuality as a sin. He also said adultery, fornication, and pre-marital sex were sins. God, how these people fear WORDS.

  • teamfrazzled

    There is no such ting as a ‘right’ to not be offended-because what offends you is your choice. You choose to be offended because the guy says it violates his Christian beliefs -ok, have at it. Your right to choose to e offended by that. But that doesn’t obligate or burden ME to respect your choice of what offends you today as if your choice somehow plays a role in limiting my RIGHTS! Certainly others constantly remind me they sure don’t respect mine either but I don’t insist my choice of what offends me puts restrictions on their rights. It is still his right to say it anyway with no obligation to protect the delicate sensitivities of those who wring their hands anxiously waiting for the next moment to screech about the emotional turmoil they put themselves through choosing to get offended by something else. I got better things to do.

  • DwellsInFire

    Showing disapproval of homosexual behavior becomes a “Hateful Attack” to the typical liberal mind? As expected… But I’m glad he cleared up that misrepresentation of the Christian faith thing that 2000 years of mankind got wrong. Yeah, apparently men lusting after other men and engaging in lude and lascivious conduct is what Jesus wants so that we may purify ourselves and become shining white before the eyes of the Lord, and thus enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Gotcha. I’m off to the local bathhouse to sodomize for the Jesus. Pray for me.

  • LL15

    If Jason Collins had any sense he’d put an end to this discussion.

  • Michele Pullara Allen

    Let’s start our own petition that supports KEEPING Chris Broussard!!!!


    MoveOn, FYI Political Justice is not the 1st Amendment!


    Liberals are the most intolerant people I know. All they want to do is control people.


    Destruction of 1st Amendment is the game for Obama and his Media Outlets, and Campaigner such as OFA and MoveOn.

  • Stephanie Warren

    Freedom for me but not for thee.

  • Neil Leininger

    Stay strong Chris, you did nothing wrong.

  • J.N. Ashby

    Tss tss maybe they should follow their own name and move on or somethin tss tss or stop off tss I dunno

    • Pat_Battle

      Ahh, Chippah…

      • J.N. Ashby

        Tss hyeah when they move on I hope they don’t forget to pack their TRUNK! tss

        Tss Pat Battle why aren’tcha like…Slap War or somethin’ tss Double Conflicts

  • barney59

    How does an almost direct quote from the Bible constitute an “unacceptable misrepresentation of the Christian faith”?

    Liberals are mental.

  • Rulz

    Listen up all!

    Let’s show our support for free speech and stand behind Broussard!

  • reaganFF; their tag line should be “Democracy Impaction.”

  • Judy Taylor

    Oh come on. Christians have rights, too.

  • Christoph DeHaven

    Hmmm…”unacceptable misrepresentation of the Christian faith.”
    As opposed to MoveOn’s acceptable misrepresentations?

  • Christoph DeHaven

    Hmmm…”unacceptable misrepresentation of the Christian faith.”
    As opposed to MoveOn’s acceptable misrepresentations?

  • Christoph DeHaven

    Jesus in the temple: You have turned my father’s house into a den of thieves!
    Priests: This is unacceptable!
    Jesus: Oh. Gosh. Sorry. I’ll be leaving now. Did I say sorry?

  • Christoph DeHaven

    Jesus in the temple: You have turned my father’s house into a den of thieves!
    Priests: This is unacceptable!
    Jesus: Oh. Gosh. Sorry. I’ll be leaving now. Did I say sorry?

  • RedSoloCup

    I will gladly sign a petition to have taken out of existence though.

  • fernmayo13

    I don’t think Broussard said anything hateful. But you calling someone a ‘fag’ is hateful.

  • DwellsInFire

    If you think somebody being a fag is a negative thing, then I guess that would mean you’re a homophobe, and thus your comment doesn’t make sense. For some reason I’m seeing a lot of conservatives resorting to irrational liberal type logic lately.

  • DeBaliviere

    In my deleted comment–thanks, brainless mod-bots–I ripped on the loons who describe every comment they don’t understand or disagree with as “hateful” or “ignorant.”