Remember that beauty pageant star…”Mrs Beverly Hills”? The one who said that she’s against same-sex marriage? The one who reminded everyone that the bible says homosexuals should be put to death and their blood is upon them? The one who said “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”…? The one who said the bible is pretty black and white…? That Mrs. Beverly Hills?
Seems the city of Beverly Hills would like to have a word with her about…er…bearing false witness…
‘Miss Beverly Hills’ moniker has city crying foul
In a statement Wednesday, the city said it was “shocked” by Ashley’s description of herself as “Miss Beverly Hills.” The city “does not sponsor a beauty pageant and has no association with Miss California USA,” the statement said. “As such, there should be no individual claiming the title of Miss Beverly Hills.”
But Wait…There’s More…
The city’s statement said Ashley lives in Pasadena and “does not represent Beverly Hills in any capacity.”
Well that’s pretty black and white. Remind me…where in Leviticus does it say Thou shalt strut around stage on national TV in a tiny little bikini and high heels while lying through your teeth about who you are and who you represent.
No tags for this post.14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Like she hasn’t had ‘girl on girl’ action. Look at her.
Comment by Melissa Anne Baluka — February 25, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
Melissa what about a woman’s looks makes it clear she’s had girl on girl action?
Comment by Priya Lynn — February 25, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
It is Timothy 2:9 “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with modesty and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”
Comment by Michael — February 25, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
Oh. Right. Forgot we can’t make jokes on here. Check.
Comment by Melissa Anne Baluka — February 25, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
Oh, I love jokes Melissa, I just honestly want to know what you think it is about a woman’s looks that suggests she’s had girl on girl action – the curiosity is killing me.
Comment by Priya Lynn — February 25, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
I don’t think you like jokes, Priya. Because you’re bating me for some reason I can’t fathom.
Comment by Melissa Anne Baluka — February 25, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
Baiting, I mean. Hard to type while you’re eating lunch. My bad.
Comment by Melissa Anne Baluka — February 25, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
I’m not baiting you Melissa, I just want to know what about a woman’s looks you think could be construed as her having had girl on girl action. Do you think she’s good looking and that means she’s more likely to have done so, or what?
Comment by Priya Lynn — February 25, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
There is a certain irony in being labeled an “abomination” by a woman who practically has “SLUT” tattooed across her forehead.
Comment by Scott E Amundsen — February 25, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
I know tone is hard to figure out over the internet, but from what I see, I believe you ARE baiting me into an argument.
I’m not going to answer your question, because as I see it I made a joke, and you (to turn a phrase) got your Irish up. If it offended you, I’m sorry.
I just have to learn to keep my mouth shut.
Comment by Melissa Anne Baluka — February 25, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
No offense intended to any Irish persons, including myself.
kthx.
Comment by Melissa Anne Baluka — February 25, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Not offended Melissa, not looking for an argument, just curious because I don’t understand what someone would think makes a person’s features identify her as having had girl on girl action.
Comment by Priya Lynn — February 25, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Shellfish, blended fabrics, and inaccurate balance scales are also called abominations in the Bible, but for some reason I don’t see any fundies getting worked up over people eating lobster or wearing cotton/poly slacks. I assume that none of Ms Ashley’s future interviews will be held in churches, because (as a good Biblical literalist) she would have to cover her head and stay silent.
Comment by cognitive dissident — February 25, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
Why is it none of these anti-gay Bible thumpers can ever get that “Thou shalt not lie” part right?
Comment by Buffy — February 25, 2010 @ 9:20 pm