Social media platforms erupted with claims that conservative commentator Charlie Kirk advocated for the stoning of gay individuals following a recent speaking engagement. These allegations gained traction after author Stephen King posted a since-deleted message on X, suggesting that Kirk supported such a stance. This controversy stems from Kirk’s comments during a September 10, 2025, event in Utah, where he referenced biblical passages in response to YouTube personality Ms. Rachel.
The incident began when Ms. Rachel quoted scripture to express her support for Pride Month. In reaction, Kirk cited a passage from the Book of Leviticus, stating, “thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death.” He contrasted this with another verse from Leviticus, which encourages loving one’s neighbor. This selective referencing was intended to highlight what Kirk perceives as a double standard in the interpretation of biblical texts regarding sexuality.
Following the event, social media users began circulating clips of Kirk’s comments, leading many to misconstrue his intentions. The video segments shared online often omitted critical context, which has led to widespread misunderstanding. While Kirk did reference the biblical verse regarding stoning, he did not explicitly call for violence against LGBTQ+ individuals.
In a search through various public statements and podcast episodes featuring Kirk, no evidence was found indicating that he directly advocated for stoning gay people. Instead, his remarks were aimed at critiquing the selective use of scripture in discussions surrounding LGBTQ+ rights.
The controversy intensified as questions surfaced from the public, particularly regarding whether Kirk believed that stoning gay people was “God’s perfect law.” These queries reflect a broader concern about the interpretation of religious texts in contemporary societal debates.
Kirk’s position as a co-founder of Turning Point USA places him under scrutiny in discussions about morality, religion, and politics, especially among conservative circles. Although he has made headlines for his outspoken views, this incident underscores the complexities of public discourse on sensitive topics.
As this situation continues to develop, the impact of misinterpretations in public discussions remains significant. The fallout from Kirk’s comments serves as a reminder of the power of social media in shaping narratives, often without full context or clarity.