50 responses

  1. North Dallas Thirty
    November 14, 2008

    So, as expected, you’re demanding that they fire her, or you’ll run them out of business.

    Meanwhile, as far as your “sympathy” for the workers, obviously you care so little for them that you’re trying to get their company shut down. Those workers should know, and by now do know, that you value suppressing and punishing those who exercise their right to donate, vote, and speak as they see fit over those workers’ livelihoods and their businesses.

  2. North Dallas Thirty
    November 14, 2008

    What Kincaid neglects to mention is that he and his fellow mob members were specifically calling for this woman to be fired.

    Hey, hey, ho, ho, Marjorie has got to go!

    He also fails to note what he and his fellow mob members were doing to other people who dared to disagree with them and chose to patronize said restaurant.

    But the anger was apparent as the few customers of the evening walked in, including a lesbian couple. They were met with angry chanting of “Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you!”

  3. Elizabeth
    November 14, 2008

    So how was Bill Marriott able to get away with not contributing to the Yes on 8 campaign? Is his salvation at risk? I doubt it.

  4. Emily K
    November 15, 2008

    A Chasidic Jew called you guys a “faggot?” Even the Ultra-Orthodox usually avoid such blatant Phelps-esque behavior, the way Dobson and the Baptists do. Shocking. And sad for the Jews, who are a great minority and are just as vulnerable to the Christian Bigots as gays are.

  5. Stefano A
    November 15, 2008

    I don’t really want to get into another conversation with you of any length, but I’m really curious North Dallas Forty. Do you spend as much time posting to places like Focus on the Family and similar organizations about their boycots, etc. as you do with gay web sites?

    Or do you just like to bait the faggots?

  6. Douglas
    November 15, 2008

    ND 30, nobody is trying to “suppress” anything. Nobody was prevented from entering this restaurant, people are still free to go there, and people may still support any causes they want or vote anyway they want. Nobody is suggesting the use of physical force here. If the lesbian couple disagreed with the protestors, they were free to ignore them.

    However, if you exercise your right to promote discrimination against gays, I’m going to exercise my right not to patronize your business. Nobody has a “right” to my money.

    I suppose you would argue that blacks should not have boycotted segregated facilities out of concern for the employees of the facilities.

    I feel bad for the employees of this place, but if Marjoe is going to treat gays like blacks generally were in 1948, all I can say is that she is responsible for any loss of business. If she does not like the cruel realities of the free market, perhaps its time for her to retire.

    Blacks never settled for anything less than full legal equality and neither should we.

  7. Fr. J.
    November 15, 2008

    You folks are very, very cruel. You would destroy lifelihoods over a $100 donation? This vindictiveness is really indefensible. Americans have the legal and moral right to vote how they like. We have the legal and moral right to support whatever movement we like.

    And while you have the legal right to destroy people’s lives, you do not have the moral right to do so.

    This is political extortion. You might as well threaten her with a bomb. How much money are you trying to get out of her I wonder? You could probably extract $1000 a month from her and still destroy her business.

    What you are doing is evil and wrong. It only makes more people certain that we should never cave in to the gay community.

  8. werdna
    November 15, 2008

    “This is political extortion. You might as well threaten her with a bomb.”

    Spoken like a veteran of Operation Rescue. Thankfully some of us see a bright, clear line between a peaceful, legal boycott and violent bomb threats.

  9. jOHN
    November 15, 2008

    Hum…I wonder if the Mormon Church church that is being so defensive realize that there are many in America that believe they are a cult and by attacking the rights of others this is strenghtening that belief. Then do not understand the changing of a consitiution, or maybe they do, and as American’s are finding out they are trying to make their “religious” beliefs law.

    [Editor: Paragraph removed for violation of Comments Policy.]

  10. North Dallas Thirty
    November 15, 2008

    I don’t really want to get into another conversation with you of any length, but I’m really curious North Dallas Forty.

    Since you don’t want to get into a conversation, then I won’t bother responding to your question.

    However, if you exercise your right to promote discrimination against gays, I’m going to exercise my right not to patronize your business. Nobody has a “right” to my money.

    Ah, but you see,the problem is that you’re not merely exercising your right to not patronize the business; instead, you’re actively trying to destroy the business and a person’s livelihood.

    If you choose not to eat there, that is your business. However, you are outside namecalling, physically blocking, and verbally assaulting patrons, and demanding that workers be fired for exercising their right to political beliefs, religious beliefs, and to donate to whom they choose.

    I suppose you would argue that blacks should not have boycotted segregated facilities out of concern for the employees of the facilities.

    Ah, but you see, black people were not allowed to set foot inside segregated facilities, be served there, be employed there, or in any way associate with them.

    You as a gay person are perfectly welcome to set foot inside El Coyote, be served there, be employed there, and associate with them, as gay people obviously have been doing for years. No one’s stopping you; in fact, what has been made obvious is that gay people have been encouraged to eat there.

    The problem here is that you are equating being physically barred from a facility under penalty of arrest and imprisonment with someone making a donation based on their religious beliefs with which you don’t agree.

    Drama.

  11. North Dallas Thirty
    November 15, 2008

    Thankfully some of us see a bright, clear line between a peaceful, legal boycott and violent bomb threats.

    Good thing, then, that you support religious people barricading off gay-owned businesses, demanding that gay employees be fired, and verbally assaulting customers of the business.

  12. Fr. J.
    November 15, 2008

    “Hum…I wonder if the Mormon Church church that is being so defensive realize that there are many in America that believe they are a cult and by attacking the rights of others this is strenghtening that belief. Then do not understand the changing of a consitiution, or maybe they do, and as American’s are finding out they are trying to make their “religious” beliefs law.”

    Actually, John, if you were more familiar with the religious makeup of our nation, you would realize that those who most consider Mormonism a cult are Evangelicals. And Evangelicals and Mormons have joined in common cause against gay marriage. The gay community is actually achieving now what 50 years of ecumenism have never been able to do–get Christians, Jews, Muslims of every sort to organize and fight together.

    Religious people dont need to take to the streets. We are the majority.

  13. North Dallas Thirty
    November 15, 2008

    Fr J. is right; Mormons may be a different religion, but they are hardly on the level of the Peoples’ Temple, Heaven’s Gate, or other such groups that are rightly and correctly called “cults”.

    Furthermore, it is amusing to watch gay and lesbian people try to smear the Mormons for child sexualization and marriage, as well as polygamous marriage, both of which the LDS Church has repudiated, when in fact the gay community itself argues that sexualizing two-year-olds constitutes an “educational experience” that is within parents’ rights, that sex with children half their age is “common” among gay people, and that marriage benefits should be extended to “households with more than one conjugal partner” — not to mention the fact that the ACLU, which is spearheading the California suits desperately trying to overturn the voters’ right to limit marriage, believes that bans on plural marriage are unconstitutional and seeks to overturn them.

  14. jOHN
    November 15, 2008

    Well while speaking to my mother a few month back about Mitt Romney she said that she would not vote for him because he was a member of the ‘mormon church, which is really a cult’ and not a religion. I stuck up for him and the Mormons but will not make that mistake again. Boy I am surprised at how smart my mother is about these things! Oh yeah. she is not an Evangelical.

    On the news when there are event about Mormons it is always about the retreats that have been evaded that are full of polygamy and pedophilia. Next step is to add these as acceptable relationships in the constitution?!? After all that is what going on with the other cult leaders. And they get away with it because their followers are not allowed to think for themselves.

    CULT – Any group which has a pyramid type authoritarian leadership structure with all teaching and guidance coming from the person/persons at the top. The group will claim to be the only way to God; Nirvana; Paradise; Ultimate Reality; Full Potential, Way to Happiness etc, and will use thought reform or mind control techniques to gain control and keep their members.

    Traditional Family Structure…yeah right.. Wasn’t the founder of the Mormons a pedophile and polygamist?

    A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies. Proverbs 12:17

  15. werdna
    November 15, 2008

    Good thing, then, that you support religious people barricading off gay-owned businesses, demanding that gay employees be fired, and verbally assaulting customers of the business.

    I’m not sure about “barricading off gay-owned businesses” or “verbally assaulting customers,” both of which sound like they might not be legal*, but if you’re asking if I support the right of religious people to organize protests and boycotts, to make any kind of demand they like and to yell at people, sure. I may disagree with their motivations and goals but if they’re not doing anything illegal then that’s their right. As I’m sure you’ll agree, such behavior isn’t always the most effective way to win public sympathy, but that doesn’t mean it should be prohibited by law.

    It’s not like you’re describing a hypothetical situation, it’s very much the kind of thing that organizations like Planned Parenthood has had to deal with for decades. Fred Phelps has also been testing the limits of allowable speech. After much legislation and many years of litigation there are fairly clear rules about what legal limits on protesters are allowed. Where there is doubt, the courts, properly, provide guidance.

    There are limits to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but they apply across the spectrum regardless of the content of the speech.

    *Remember that assault is defined in many places as intentionally causing the reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. Yelling threats or swinging a stick at someones head in a threatening manner may be cause for arrest. I don’t support that kind of behavior. Likewise “demanding that gay employees be fired” might be allowable as a goal of a protest, but could well land an employer who gave in to such a demand in legal trouble if there were relevant anti-discrimination laws in place in that locale.

  16. Ben in Oakland
    November 15, 2008

    Fr. J wrote “You folks are very, very cruel. You would destroy lifelihoods (sic)over a $100 donation? This vindictiveness is really indefensible.”

    You would destroy my civil marriage for what– you belief that homosexuality is a sin? This vindictiveness is really indefensible.

    But it’s nothing new. I’ve been hearing your hate my whole life.

    You seem so surprised that we’re angry that we have been attacked yet again with the usual set of lies and love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin bull-hockey. You seem surprised that we might be getting very tired of this, and maybe really don’t want to be good niggers anymore. You attack my freedom of religion by insisting that your particular take on your religious book should govern civil law, my civil marriage, and my equality before the law. You attack and invalidate my marriage, something you would never accept for yourself. Your campaign called me a threat to religion, speech, children, family, faith, education, and country. In order to support that very vindictive set of lies you told another set of lies– verifiable lies. Distortions and half-truths, all demonstrated as such, were part and parcel of your morality. You keep insisting it is all about your religious beliefs and not about prejudice and hate– honey, it has NEVER been about anything else, and never will be.

    And you have the balls to insist that we are immoral?

    You glory in your newfound alliance with the evangelicals. “I think they like us.They really, really like us.” It is a very sad thing that after 150 years of anti-Mormon persecution, you still don’t get it. No they don’t, and they never will. They have The Truth. You’re still a cult to them, but you had plenty of money and organizational power. So that worked. But it is an interesting admission, because I thought for a long time that the Mor ons (Damn that skipping m) were just trying to buy a bit of respectability with their overtures to other conservatives. I think you over-estimate them. Like any whores, they can be purchased for a while. Ultimately, they’re self-employed. Now you can go right back to trying to convert each other to the True Faith.

    I’m sure you fail to see the great irony at the heart of your glory. You various sects and denominations and factions constantly disagree on the nature of god, the very history of G (book of mor on, anyone?) and his message to the world. The history of the world is writ large with the strife and the bloodshed and the waste and the hate of those disagreements.

    But the one thing that you have all found that you CAN agree on is this; you finally have it right about the group that G wants you to beat the crap out of, except that we’re just the latest in a long line.. You can set aside Benny the Ratz’s statement that the only path to salvation is through him– I mean through Jesus of course. not Benny. Even though he does think that he is G’s representative on earth. Just like the Prophet.

    So maybe, given the obvious, this really isn’t about your religion at all, or morality, or anything else that you wish to claim it is.
    Let me repeat:

    Prejudice and hate– honey, it has NEVER been about anything else, and never will be.

  17. Fr. J.
    November 15, 2008

    Ben,

    If you knew what you were talking about, you would realize that I’m not Mormon. Hello, I’m Catholic. Evangelicals historically dont like Catholics, but on the abortion issue, we have been able to put aside our differences, even become friends. The great walls that came down were 500 years old and I now count many Evangelicals among my friends. So, yes, it does happen.

    And, as the secularists such as yourselves become more and more outrageous in your demands and anti-religious activities, you bring the religious community more and more together.

    I know myself. I know I dont hate you or anyone. I disagree with you. So calling me a hater doesn’t have any traction with me.

    You do not frighten, intimidate or deter me.

    Ben, in Jesus Christ I love you. And I love you enough to not give into your self destructive demands.

    Yes, self destructive because if you destroy El Coyote, there will be far greater repercussions to pay for the gay community.

    This woman, whom you have already terrorized will be a martyr. And, nobody understands a martyr more that religious people.

    God bless you, Ben. And may you come to know HIM.

    Praised be Jesus Christ now and forever.

    Fr. J.

  18. Stefano A
    November 15, 2008

    This is a saliant point, you speak of religions all beliving that only heterosexual marriages are “holy” unions, that your particular take on your religious book should govern civil law and that is a unifying factor.

    While the point is, it is not a universal agreement about that particular book. It is only a universal agreement by those who use the book to rationalize their prejudices. Ignoring those other religious groups who do not agree with your interpretation of “the book” and do not share your prejudices.

    This conceit of yours was very explicitly illustrated by a recent event in Philadelphia where the Roman Catholic Church Bishops tried to assert ownership of the word “Catholic” by telling the Miriam Catholic Church it should not be listing itself in religious directories for Philadelphia as “Catholic”.

    The Miriam Catholic Church along with the Old Catholic church as just so happens support SSM, and support the ordination of gay priests and in the case of the Miriam Catholic Church marriage for their priests regardless of orientation.

    The point, I think, trying to be made is the only thing uniting diverse sectarian sects in opposition to SSM is their drive to impose their beliefs for governmental endorsement of institutionalized homophobia, the only uniting forc is the prejudice against homosexuality.

    And this isn’t bringing the “religious community” more and more together, it is only bringing that part of the religious community together which perpetuates their own anti-gay prejudices. That prejudice is in fact splitting the religous communities and families apart. Denominations are splitting apart over the conflict of one religious group trying to assert it’s ownership of the “truth” into law. When what is not being voted on is theological beliefs.

  19. Stefano A
    November 15, 2008

    Ohhhh my bad and sincere apology.

    I didn’t mean to post as Fr J in the above comment.

    I meant to begin that post addressed to FR J and hadn’t noticed I’d typed that address in the name field rather than the text box.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    I’ll e-mail Jim and Tim and ask they edit the name field if they can.

  20. Douglas
    November 15, 2008

    “Ah, but you see,the problem is that you’re not merely exercising your right to not patronize the business; instead, you’re actively trying to destroy the business and a person’s livelihood.”

    Right, I support trying to put anti-gay businesses out of business by peaceful boycotts.

    “If you choose not to eat there, that is your business. However, you are outside namecalling, physically blocking, and verbally assaulting patrons, and demanding that workers be fired for exercising their right to political beliefs, religious beliefs, and to donate to whom they choose.”

    I’m not in So. California. I DO NOT support physically blocking people from entering a business. “Verbally assaulting?” –please. Some people were just expressing their opinion that gays should be ashamed of eating there. Do you understand the concept of free speech? And I’m not “demanding” that anyone be fired for their political activities–that is generally illegal. As if I had the power to do so.

    “Ah, but you see, black people were not allowed to set foot inside segregated facilities, be served there, be employed there, or in any way associate with them.”

    Of course they were allowed to set foot in segregated facilities–just not in the white section. And they may even have been employed as cooks or dishwashers.

    “You as a gay person are perfectly welcome to set foot inside El Coyote, be served there, be employed there, and associate with them, as gay people obviously have been doing for years. No one’s stopping you; in fact, what has been made obvious is that gay people have been encouraged to eat there.”

    Yes, I don’t disagree with you.

    “The problem here is that you are equating being physically barred from a facility under penalty of arrest and imprisonment with someone making a donation based on their religious beliefs with which you don’t agree.”

    Not really. I’m just pointing out that if you actively suport taking away my rights, that may have economic consequences for you.

  21. Douglas
    November 15, 2008

    “Furthermore, it is amusing to watch gay and lesbian people try to smear the Mormons for child sexualization and marriage, as well as polygamous marriage, both of which the LDS Church has repudiated, when in fact the gay community itself argues that sexualizing two-year-olds constitutes an “educational experience” that is within parents’ rights, that sex with children half their age is “common” among gay people, and that marriage benefits should be extended to “households with more than one conjugal partner” — not to mention the fact that the ACLU, which is spearheading the California suits desperately trying to overturn the voters’ right to limit marriage, believes that bans on plural marriage are unconstitutional and seeks to overturn them.”

    I was not aware that there was a Gay Politburo” that spoke for the entire gay community.

    Certain gay individuals take objectionable positions like people in any other group.

    And I was not aware that the ACLU was a gay group. Is the Socialist Worker’s Party a gay group? Both have taken positions on gay issues, I suppose. So what?

    Plural marriges are a distinct issue from the issue of whether one adult person should be able to marry another adult person of their choice, save a close relation.

    I disagree that the voters have a “right” to restrict marriage to heterosexuals absent fiundamental Constitutional change. The Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions apply here. The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously agreed in the past that marriage is a “fundamental” right that cannot be infringed absent compelling reasons. Prisoners on death row currently enjoy the right to get married if they are straight.

    To revise the California Constitution (which is what Prop 8 does), 2/3 of the state legislature must agree before putting it to the voters. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy.

  22. Zeke
    November 15, 2008

    Fr. J, I would think that you would have your hands full routing out the pedophiles in your pulpits to be so distracted with trying to keep free thinking, consenting adults from forming legally recognized loving and committed relationships.

    Seriously bro, I think you have some seriously screwed up priorities.

    Might I add that your church is SICK and DISGUSTING for trying to scapegoat the gay community for your pedophile problem. You deflected blame from yourselves onto a vulnerable and innocent minority.

    Tell me how that is Christ-like.

    ND30 has never met a homophobe that he didn’t love or a gay rights activist that he liked. His full time job seems to be trolling gay websites ranting and raving about how horrible gays and liberals and gay liberals are and how right and reasonable all right-wing conservatives and homophobes and right-wing conservative homophobes are.

  23. Ryan
    November 15, 2008

    ND40, the “gay community” does not in any way argue for the sexualization of 2 year olds or for pedophilia in any way. Just because you could find some links that show some gay people somewhere advocating those things doesn’t mean they speak for the gay community, and more than the members of Heaven’s Gate speak for the religious community. The world is a very big place and you could find crazies of every race, religion, sexuality, or political stripe and then insist their views are those of that community. I could link you an article about a Klan rally and then say that those are the views of the “white” community. But that would make me as intellectually bankrupt as you.

    The *truth* is that boycotts are as American as bald eagles and apple pies. It’s how our country was formed, for crying out loud. Fr. J and ND40, do you get upset when people protest outside an abortion clinic? And yell “Shame, shame shame!” to the girls going inside? Or is that okay, because you agree with their stance? Would if you found out a religious leader at your church made a donation to planned parenthood or GLAAD? Would you say “oh well, it’s a private donation, it’s okay” or would you boycott that church and insist man doing the donating be fired?
    Margie has made her living off of the goodwill of gay people that she secretly has, if not hate for, then a healthy amount of distaste. The fact that this has become known has many gay patrons feel as if they’ve been played for a fool. We gave her money before, which means, in essence, we gave money to Yes on 8. We’re not giving her money anymore.

  24. Fr. J.
    November 15, 2008

    Ryan,

    One cannot make a comparison on moral grounds between a restaurant and an abortion clinic. A restaurant is a social good and an abortion clinic is a social evil.

    So, yes, it is an evil to destroy the business of an innocent citizen.

    Besides, your kulturkampf on people of faith will backfire on you. If El Coyote goes out of business, this will rally Christians and religious people everywhere. This will hurt you.

    And I dont want that. Gays should every right in the world that every citizen has. But no one has the right to redefine marriage.

    God Bless you all,
    Fr. J.

  25. werdna
    November 15, 2008

    This is probably superfluous since ND30′s been banned at this point but I did think of a couple things I wanted to add.

    The first is a minor elaboration of my last comment. I don’t want to leave the impression that I am supportive of only legal protest. Non-violent civil disobedience is a valid, meaningful and important form of political protest. In the example to which I was responding civil disobedience didn’t seem appropriate or justifiable so it didn’t occur to me to address it.

    The second thing I want to mention is that I don’t think we should be too hasty to dismiss legitimate criticisms because of the obnoxious way they are raised. It’s not a bad thing to be asked to consider the less obvious implications of the positions we take and to consider how they might appear to others who do not share our perspectives or beliefs. It’s important to think clearly about why we advocate the actions we do, what we hope to accomplish by them, and to honestly face the possible negative consequences and evaluate whether we are really ready to accept responsibility for them. Generally, I think folks here are quite thoughtful and reasonable (even in the face of really vile provocation), but I just wanted to put that out there.

    That said, it’s a waste of time to feed trolls and I’m not going to pretend that ND30 is arguing in good faith. He’s got a big chip on his shoulder, he’s rude, and he isn’t much interested in respectful dialogue. I’m particularly dismayed that he’s adapted part of my previous response to him into a post on his site which attacks this web site. I should’ve known better…

  26. Ryan
    November 15, 2008

    Dude, know one is fooled by the “God Bless you” thing. I wonder, how do you think God feels when you say “God bless you”, but you really mean “f**k you”?

    You feel that abortion is a social evil. Gay people boycotting El Coyote feel that being anti-gay marriage is a social evil. The difference is, unlike you, I’m not a hypocrite. I have no objection to you boycotting an abortion clinic and trying to put the people who work there out of a job, even though I disagree with you personally on that issue. You seem to feel that gay people have no right to boycott, which is one of America’s most treasured institutions.

    And, I’m sorry, what did you say you would do if you discovered a religious leader in your church gave money to GLAAD or planned parenthood? Ah yes, you didn’t answer that question. Maybe because you knew it would undermine your argument?

  27. Ryan
    November 15, 2008

    First sentence should say “no one is fooled”. Ugh. I hate typos.

  28. Scott
    November 16, 2008

    [Comment in violation of Comments Policy]

  29. Ryan
    November 16, 2008

    Deleted. See my comments below — Jim B.

  30. Jason D
    November 16, 2008

    I find it amusing that ND30 was trying to pursuade us about the “Gay Community” with the links he provided. If they had been from Lamda Legal, HRC, GLSEN, PFLAG, GLADD, The Center for Lesbian Rights, he might have a point.

    But linking us to these things just because some gay people support these ideas is like linking any baptist to the Westboro Baptist Church. Or that Timothy McVeigh was a representative of Roman Catholicism and or agnostics everywhere (he claimed to be both at different times). Does Tonya Harding’s actions speak for figure skaters? Michael Vick for Athletes? R-Kelly for R&B artists?

    But it’s all okay, Elton John said we should just accept Civil Partnerships, they’re the same thing! Because, you know, Civil Partnership is exactly the same in British Law and American law.

  31. Ben in Oakland
    November 16, 2008

    Fr J: “Ben, in Jesus Christ I love you. And I love you enough to not give into your self destructive demands.”

    You can say this. It doesn’t really change anything. It doesn’t matter to me whether you are mormon or catholic. The principle is the same. That holds no ‘traction’ with me. As recently as three years ago, I heard a prominent evangelical refer to the RC as “that whore of Babylon”, and they deny that the only path of salvation is through [the Pope]. You now pursue gay people with the same moral certainty with which you used to burn witches– or each other. Until recently, Catholics and Protestants were still killing each other in Northern Ireland. Do you really think that the evangelicals, if they had the power they crave, would like you Catholics quite so much? I don’t think so. Your marriage, unlike mine, is truly one of convenience.

    I’m not an anti-religion secularist, whatever that is. All of the people I know are perfectly happy to let you believe whatever you want. You are the ones that have been attacking us. I have never campaigned against religion or religious freedom. I think your religions are silly, hypocritical, self-serving, and focused on an unprovable salvation and afterlife scheme whose main purpose seems to be to keep [the Pope] in his castle on Lake Gandolfo eating with a golden fork while millions of catholic children starve or are sold into sexual slavery by their parents. (my gay brother kept a Filipino girl supported for years in order to prevent her parents form selling her to feed the family, but that is another story). Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but I suspect he might have had a few opinions of the $75 million spent to attack my civil marriage instead of feeding the children. But you don’t care as much about feeding those children as you do about attacking us. how many of them died during the election cycle?

    but please, don’t tell me you love me. You are the 8th Christian I’ve had an online debate with who, when I call you on your religious prejudice and your refusal to live and let live, ignore the obvious and go on about how much you AND G love me. I don’t believe that for a moment. You don’t know me or anything about me.

    In an online debate, a pastor wrote this: “I also submit that just because I may believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it doesn’t mean I don’t care about homosexual people. Not all love says “yes”; all that says “no” does not necessarily mean hatred.”

    We have VERY VERY different ideas of love. You idea of love is spreading YOUR conception of the gospel to the poor sinners out there– whether they are interested or not, without knowing whether they have already heard it and accepted it– or rejected it. In short, with knowing nothing about their spiritual state or how G sees them– or anything about them at all. In short, it’s all about you, and not about the people you allegedly love. And that’s not love, it’s narcissism.

    A host of other good Christians are all happy to tell me how much they love me, and then follow it up with comments like ‘cancer on society’ and the whole vicious panoply of anti-gay, homophobic, lying rants. They will tell me how much they love me right before they tell me how much they hate my child-molesting, disease spreading, country-destroying, religion-despising, marriage-compromising, military demoralizing ways — all of which is news to me and my husband. Sorry, if that’s love, I prefer hatred. Hatred I understand, and I’m not so stupid that I can’t tell the difference.

    You say that YOU are entitled to say NO based upon YOUR religious beliefs beliefs which I and a LOT of other people do not share– including your mormon and evangelical allies– whether on the nature of homosexuality or G’s message to the world. But funny, you don’t usually makes campaigns against other religious beliefs– that would be so Middle Ages of you. Muslims, of course, are excepted. But you– by this I mean a generic you, Christians who think my sex life is their business– feel free to do that to gay people on a regular basis. I don’t know if my marriage, which I assure you means far more to me than it does to you, exists– thanks to people who, like you, know nothing about homosexuality, my soul, or my life– or as far as I can tell, their book– but still presume to tell me that I am not entitled to the same treatment in society that they are. In fact, the treatment I am entitled to is quite a bit different, and not in a good way, than the treatment they accord themselves. It’s all about the myth of heterosexual superiority in service to the reality of heterosexual privilege to enforce the myth of heterosexual hegemony.

    You say you are entitled to say NO when you clearly know little about the subject (including the precious little that your book allegedly says on the alleged subject), and NOTHING about me, my experiences, my life, my beliefs, and yes, MY homosexuality– we’re not really alike, despite your assumption that our ’sin’ defines us so.

    And here is the crux of the issue. When you tell me you love me, it means vastly different things to each of us. You may tell me you love me, but the rhetoric and the religious belief is exactly the same as the generic you I have already addressed above. You do not believe my marriage can and should be valid, all in the name of loving me but hating my sin. As (I believe) General Westmoreland so bravely put it: “We must destroy that village in order to save it.” Lucky villagers! Saved!

    As far as I can tell, in its practical effects, that “love’, that “rhetoric”, that “religious belief” is completely indistinguishable from hatred. So I prefer the hatred, because at least it is honest and not self-serving. Only self-service here at The Morality Cafe. When the practical effects of your love and your care– and the political, cultural, religious and social agendas that your commitment to ‘love’ requires you also to commit to– is indistinguishable from the effects of the ‘no’s”, the ‘disapproval’, and the hate, then I might just lack the subtlety to be able to tell the difference.

    So say it loud and sat it proud: I hate queers, and I will bend and twist any moral or civil principle that I can find in service to that idea. But i’ll call it love, because I really want to feel good about myself.

    And in fact, I feel better already.

  32. Scott
    November 16, 2008

    Deleted. See my comments below — Jim B.

  33. Ryan
    November 16, 2008

    Deleted. See my comments below — Jim B.

  34. John
    November 16, 2008

    Deleted. See my comments below — Jim B.

  35. Timothy Kincaid
    November 16, 2008

    North Dallas Thirty is not here to defend himself. So let’s not have any more speculation about him.

  36. Jim Burroway
    November 16, 2008

    I’ve deleted the last three comments before Timothy’s. This thread is not about ND30 or anyone else. What’s more, since he has been banned and is not able to defend himself or answer to anyone, further comments speculating about him or talking about him are inappropriate.

  37. Jesse
    November 17, 2008

    Let’s take this all the way to the conclusion.

    Gays want to put out of business anyone that supported gay marriage. So if you voted yes, you must close down your business.

    This is what I don’t get. So you put them out of business and then what? Are they allowed to work? Can marjorie get a job at another restaurante?

    Can Scott Eckern ever work again? Can he get another job at a university? Does he have to say that he does not believe homosexuality to be a sin in order for him to work?

    This boycotting is stupid because if prop 8 had failed, would you guys still be protesting el coyote? NOOOOO!!!! You’re only protesting because prop 8 passed.

    Do gays think that all mormons, catholics, and others who don’t believe in gay marriage should be barrred from any leadership position in any company?

    Because that would be 52 percent of californians which is ridiculous!!! You gays don’t give enough credit to the fact that gay marriage is a progressive idea and that it has not been around in our society for very long.

    And I still think it’s funny that this is over 100 dollars. And that you will put a bunch of gays out of work and that they are losing tips, etc. And that it is a gay oriented restaurant that you are closing. And that most straight people don’t care. And that this protest won’t convince marjorie to change what she feels inside. And did i mention that huffington post reported that marjorie once flew home the mother of one of the patrons who died from AIDS.

    Great woman to pick on. Gays are only hurting themselves by this. And most people who voted yes, who’s minds you are trying to change, think this is mean-spirited and consider it blacklisting. They don’t care if you feel slighted or justified. It isn’t changing their minds.

  38. Ryan
    November 17, 2008

    “Do gays think that all mormons, catholics, and others who don’t believe in gay marriage should be barrred from any leadership position in any company?”

    You don’t seem to understand the concept of a boycott. No, no one should be “barred” from anything based on how they vote. That would be against the First Amendment. No one is barring Marjorie or Eckern from ever working again. Your wild extrapolation is unfair and ridiculous.

    “Gays want to put out of business anyone that supported gay marriage. So if you voted yes, you must close down your business.”

    You’re literally the only one who’s said this.

    What we are saying is, we aren’t going to give our money to Eckern and Marjorie. Both of those them worked closely with gay people, made their living off of them, and chose to take the money they earned *due to* gay people and use that money *against* gay people. We simply choose not to give any more of our money to people who will use it against us. What about that is so difficult to understand? It’s not about changing Scott, or Marjorie’s minds, as you seem to think it is. (They’ve both worked with gay people for years and years, and yet they both still think that, as great as gays are, they’re still inferior).
    It’s simply about us not being saps.

    Surely there must be a cause you believe in, Jesse. Think of whatever that is right now. Now imagine someone else wanted to give money to work *against* whatever that cause was that you believe in. Would you help them? Would you give them your money? Of course not. Ridiculous.

  39. Ryan
    November 17, 2008

    and “mean spirited”? You’re kidding, right? Prop 8 is nothing *but* mean spirited.

  40. Jesse
    November 17, 2008

    you don’t want marjorie out of business? Then why are the protestors yelling “shame, shame, shame,” to anyone who walks into the restaurant? Calling patrons supporters of hate!!!

    Yup, that sounds like you don’t want her in business to me.

    It’s fine if you don’t want to go to the restaurant, or go see California music circus, but that is not what happened. Gays called for the head of Scott eckern and got it. Marjorie has now left the restaurant.

    You are saying that gays are just no going to give their money to people who voted yes. Maybe you feel that way that isn’t reality.

    These attacks are personal because the action were done by people. You are not boycotting CMT or el coyote because the businesses did nothing!!! Two employees did!!! If these two people leave, you will stop boycotting, right!!! So, it is a personal attack!!!

    And gays still don’t understand that it IS about changing peoples minds. That’s why gays lost the election. There is a huge disconnect between how gays and how opponents of gay marriage frame the disagreement.

    Opponents don’t consider it a civil rights struggle. Gays do. Gays think that calling the other side haters is somehow going to shame them into changing their minds or speak to their conscience. But it won’t work because opponents don’t consider it a valid argument. That’s why you lost and by ryan’s post, he/she doesn’t understand this. Gays did not address the concerns of Yes on 8 voters. Until they do, there will be a split electorate.

    Your attitude seems to bank on the courts overturning Prop 8. If the court doesn’t, all these protests and crap are screwing your cause. Right now, your actions are but hurt feelings, nothing more.

  41. Timothy Kincaid
    November 17, 2008

    Jesse,

    Whether Marjorie seeks another job (unlikely at her age) isn’t the issue. We object to the profits of our purchases being used against us. If Margie is part of the ownership of another restaurant, I’ll not go there either.

    And perhaps you misunderstand. The protest against El Coyote is not because we lost, exactly. It’s because we were betrayed by Margie. I wouldn’t eat there again either way.

    As for Scott Eckern working again, that’s a bit tougher. It may be difficult for him to find work in the theater world, just as it might be difficult for someone who supports racial discrimination to find an NFL team to hire him.

    Perhaps Eckern can find work in the drama department at BYU or somewhere else that believes that gay people should accept “good enough” rights and not get all uppity and demand equal rights.

  42. Jason D
    November 17, 2008

    “Opponents don’t consider it a civil rights struggle. Gays do.”

    First of all, the opponents during the 60′s didn’t consider it a civil rights issue. Nor were women voting a civil rights issue. Nor was interracial marriage, etc, etc.
    Opponents to civil rights rarely, if ever, see themselves as anything but “good people” who are just “doing what’s right.” History, however, has a different take on the matter in the end.

    And it’s not just gays that see it as a civil rights issue. Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks see it as a Civil Rights issue, too. As does Governor Schwarzenegger, and a lot of other people like Molly Ringwald, Samuel L. Jackson, Brad Pitt, all these people aren’t gay. All these non-gay people seem to get it.

    And we were 4 points shy of winning. 4 points. It was a landslide 8 years ago, this time, not so much. The trend over the past 30 years has been in favor of increasing support. If this vote had been next year, rather than this year, it’s entirely likely that we would’ve won, or at the very least lost by a much smaller margin.

  43. Ben in Oakland
    November 17, 2008

    And if they had not conducted the campaign from deep within the closet, which perverts and corrupts everything it touches, I think we would have won hands down.

  44. Ryan
    November 17, 2008

    Jesse, you’re just not listening at all.
    YOU said (speaking for gay people):

    ““Gays want to put out of business anyone that supported gay marriage. So if you voted yes, you must close down your business.””

    And I said that’s not true, we’ve never said that, which YOU distorted and reinterpreted to mean

    “you don’t want marjorie out of business? Then why are the protestors yelling “shame, shame, shame,” to anyone who walks into the restaurant? Calling patrons supporters of hate!!!”

    Which is completely different. VOTING Yes and GIVING MONEY to Yes are two completely different things. I won’t give money to a business where the owner’s child (NOT an employee as you said) gave money against me. Only a fool would do so.

    “These attacks are personal because the action were done by people. You are not boycotting CMT or el coyote because the businesses did nothing!!! Two employees did!!! If these two people leave, you will stop boycotting, right!!! So, it is a personal attack!!!”
    First of all, your whole mind reading crap is annoying. Don’t tell me “why” I’m doing something, and I’ll do the same for you. The attacks by Marjorie and Scott were personal, as they both made their livings off of gay people, and both of them were in very high up positions. Not just “employees”. They very much so represented those businesses.

    And you’re smug condescending BS about “this isn’t changing any minds” is way out of line. I know people like you would very much like it if we just sat on our hands and hoped really hard that people will change their minds if we say pretty pretty please. But those days are over. When businesses who rely on gays for financial support realize they can’t take our money and stab us in the back anymore, maybe they’ll reconsider how they vote on gay issues.

  45. Louie
    November 17, 2008

    I think Ryan hit the nail right on the head when he wrote:

    [...]businesses who rely on gays for financial support realize they can’t take our money and stab us in the back anymore, maybe they’ll reconsider how they vote on gay issues.

    I think that this should also apply to the “gay” vote. Politicians that rely on gays for their vote and support and then stab us in the back, I.E. Clinton and DOMA, Clinton and DADT, etc. had better start taking notice of our unrest.

    Screw me once, shame on you.
    Screw me twice, shame on me.

    Yes, those days are OVER!

  46. Jesse
    November 17, 2008

    I am not saying sit on your hands. I just think that the boycotts are a poor choice of strategy for the overall movement and more reactionary than from pragmatic thinking. The marchers and activism and the call to hold your leaders accountable are great, no disagreement there.

    I sense a lack of appreciation for the arguments or reasons that people oppose gay marriage. I think if there had been more positive marchs before the election and more positive engagement (much like the marchs now), the vote could have been different. There seems to be too much blaming.

    If I understand correctly, you guys feel this is purely a civil rights issue and that you can’t be denied it. The courts will show if that is a correct assumption or not. The truth is not everyone sees it the same as you. How you choose to deal with that may or may not affect the outcome. I don’t think the campaign ever dealt with concerns of prop 8 supporters, which, through time, may resolve themselves.

    I disagree that protesting at churches and boycotting individual supporters helps your cause. It will interesting to see how everything plays out.

  47. Ryan
    November 17, 2008

    “I think if there had been more positive marchs before the election and more positive engagement (much like the marches now), the vote could have been different.”

    This we agree on 100%. Polls showed Pro 8 losing badly as late as September. We were caught sleeping, and we didn’t know the Prop 8 people would change the argument and start telling lies about churches losing their tax exempt status or pastors going to jail for hate speech. Enough people who were ignorant on the issue were persuaded.

    “I disagree that protesting at churches and boycotting individual supporters helps your cause”

    Again, both Scott and Margie were special cases because of the businesses where they worked and neither one were simply “employees”. In general, individual supporters are not being boycotted.

  48. patrick
    November 19, 2008

    IF you are upset at what Marjie did then do not go and eat there

    I spoke with the owner and this is what they have done

    Donated $500 to repeal Prop 8

    Are giving lots of money to 5 top gay charities

    Will host benefits for other gay groups

    and most importantly have appologized

    Standing in front of a restaurant and taunting people for going in is not the way to get your point across. I stood there and watched and saw it happen

  49. Stefano A
    November 19, 2008

    It was my understanding that the restaurant employees had taken up a donation out of their own pockets to make the financial donations and that the owners (i.e. Marjorie and her family) continued to state they had not participated in the donation. At least that has been what the Los Angeles Times has reported in their quotes of a restaurant spokesperson.

  50. Timothy Kincaid
    November 19, 2008

    patrick,

    You are speading untruthful claims.

    1. The owner is not giving in the manner in which you claim. To the best of all knowledge, neither the owner nor the family are giving a cent to either overturn Prop 8 OR any other gay cause.

    Incidentally, the family charitable trust (The Blanche March Foundation) has not given one red cent to a gay or AIDS cause in at least the past three years.

    2. Employees collected money in response to the boycott and gave it to repeal Proposition 8 after the protesters were outside.

    3. The Restaurant may give to a gay charity, some day. That promise to give is now eight days old. I wonder if it will EVER materialize.

    4. Margie has not apologized either for her contributions or for her deception to those who patronized the restaurant after her contribution.

    If you want to eat there, by all means do so. But don’t go about selling falsehoods and half-truths.

    (And I’m curious… just where were you standing. You weren’t the guy by the side door with the scowl and the crossed arms, were you?)

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop