Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

El Coyote Manager Steps Down

Jim Burroway

December 8th, 2008

Frontiers Magazine is reporting that Marjorie Christoffersen, manager at El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeless, is stepping down. She is also resigning as a member of El Coyote’s board of directors. She had been with the restaurant for 26 years.

El Coyote became embroiled in controversey last month when it was learned that Marjorie Christoffersen had donated $100 to California’s “Yes on 8″ campaign, which sponsored the contitutional amendment to strip gays and lesbians of their right to marry. This contribution came as a shock to restaurant’s gay clientele which had seen the venerable 77-year-old institution as a welcoming and gay-friendly establishment.

After news of Christoffersen’s donation broke, El Coyote managers agreed to sit down and discuss the donation with members of the community. During the meeting, Christoffersen said that she was proud that the restaurant had been a “beacon of diversity.” But she refused to apologize for her donation, which she said stemmed from her Mormon faith. That led to a boycott of the restaurant.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Timothy Kincaid
December 8th, 2008 | LINK

I think it’s a smart move before they have to close down completely.

I drive by nearly every day and if the parking lot and front desk are any indication they are really hurting.

I’m still going to wait a bit before I decide whether to go back. I’m very disappointed in the initial response of the family and the way in which Margie’s daughters were almost openly contemptious makes me cautious.

Diogenes
December 8th, 2008 | LINK

Too little, too late for my taste.

And I had been going there since 1975.

Ryan
December 8th, 2008 | LINK

I’m more than willing to got back now. There are many gay people who work there, it’s not fair to hurt them.

David
December 8th, 2008 | LINK

For anyone thinking of going back to El Coyote – just something else to think about:

the restaurant(s) you’ve been going to since the news broke about El Coyote – have they earned your loyalty by now?

Who ever is getting your lunch money now, do they deserve it more, even if Margie is gone?

Something to think about.

When betraying GLBTQ people means that other businesses will win us as their loyal customers, businesses will think twice about betraying us.

Freddie
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

Until I hear that she doesn’t have ANY ownership interest in the restaurant — today’s news is only that she’s not an employee or a director anymore, but nothing about her stock ownership — I’m still not running the risk of funding my own discrimination. Remember, her church requires her to give a 10% tithe. This move looks a lot like the damage control manhunt did after it turned out one of the owners donated to all the wrong places: He quit as a director. But he still owns, and profits from, half the damn thing.

cowboy
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

Could the business be a casualty of the economy and not just the boycott?

It’s probably both.

I am going to lay some guilt on members of Sister Christoffersen’s Church. They should be patronizing her business. Mormons should be using El Coyote to cater all the Ward Christmas parties, at least.

And…was the food THAT good?

Ryan
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

“Could the business be a casualty of the economy and not just the boycott?

It’s probably both. ”

Yes, I’m sure the timing is pure coincidence.

Timothy Kincaid
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

cowboy,

Actually, it’s probably not the economy. El Coyote was very cheap. If anything, folks might cut back their more expensive dining in favor of El Coyote. And it should be packed this time of year with company parties and friends getting together, the parking lot is still nearly empty every night.

And while I enjoyed the food (in a ‘guilty pleasure’ way), the reason people went there was for the atmosphere and the vibe.

As for Mormon support, I don’t think it’s going to survive from LDS customers. With a combination plate priced at $9.50, you aren’t going to make any money if you aren’t selling margaritas.

cowboy
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

I don’t mean to pick at the scab more. I’m not lukewarm or a fence-sitter on this issue. But something about the punishment should fit the crime is nagging at me a little.

Would there be an appropriate amount of time, after the restaurant loses a certain amount of business, when you might go back to being part of that “vibe”?

At what point do we say we have made our point?

Not until the whole of the Mormon Church accepts gay marriage?

Or when the owners of El Coyote demonstrate real contriteness?

Jayelle
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

I would think that this was overkill, except that it appears that this restaurant is actively courting the LGBT community’s business. It is not sound business to beckon people with one hand and turn their money into a weapon against them with the other. If I’d lived in the area, I would no longer be able to trust this Margie to give my wife and I good service. And in this economy, every customer definitely counts.

We don’t want to have LGBT versions of the American Family Association, with their eternal boycotts, but we need to be kind to ourselves and stick with businesses that are kind to us.

Rick
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

The Irish employed boycotts in their efforts to win the Land Wars in the 1880s (when the term was first coined). The boycott was an effective tool because there were many more tenant farmers than there were old-family, monied, absentee landlords (who depended upon them for income from rent and crops).

There were more folks employing the boycott than those being boycotted.

Is this the case for gays folks today? I’m not so sure. If gays are the only ones employing the boycott it cannot succeed (we are a minority). If gays and their supporters are working together to support the boycotts, they might be effective.

I agree with Jayelle, however, in that I’d rather not end up resembling the AFA’s endless rejection of anything that displeases them.

John
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

Cowboy,

Your question about when we quit boycotting is interesting. I am still very angry at the Mormon Church, and I don’t ever see myself knowingly supporting a Mormon business or professional in the future. I know how that sounds, but I feel that I cannot just allow a group to declare war on me and do nothing.

I also wanted to ask you a more particular question, since you have a Mormon backround and live in Utah. I have heard the term “business Mormon.” My understanding is that business owners in heavily Mormon areas convert to Mormonism in order for their business to succeed (or even survive), because local Mormons won’t patronize non-Mormon businesses if there is a Mormon option. If that really is the case, Mormons routinely boycott non-Mormons.

Dave
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

Wonderful! A great victory for bullying.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Prop 8 supporters had driven a gay marriage advocate out of a job at a business that had many Mormon and other conservative Christian types, gays in California — not to mention the Left in general — would be screaming bloody murder.

cowboy
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

I understand, John. I would have second thoughts about going to a hostile Establishment A if there were a fine, friendly Establishment B nearby. We have no Mobil oil gas stations here but when I do travel in places where Exxon/Mobil stations are, I will fill my rental car with gas from the “friendlier” competition.

Not many people are willing to talk about the unique business clique we have here. I’m sure there are similar “preferred” business relations happening intentionally and unintentionally in other cities and cultures here in the US. I mean, it’s common knowledge that most business deals are done on the golf course…right? It’s the Country Club Connection?

But, I must tell you, I personally have witnessed a co-worker once buy some undergarments that looked similar to the LDS Temple garments. He used to take pains to look the part of a Returned Missionary to get deals and work the system here. And, yes, he was cute, charming and successful. I just knew his success went up his nose and his “reputation” was well known in some of the bars/taverns in town.

But he did buy long white bicycle sport undershorts and the t-shirts that mimicked the Temple sacred garments. We call them: smilelys pronounced: smile-lees. The Temple garment t-shirts have a slight smile-looking outline under your clothes.

And yes…Mormon businessmen look for that tell-tale sign.

lzr
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

The pro-H8 supporters tried to extort money from businesses that donated to the no side and they threatened them with boycotts — as anti-gay organizations do every freaking minute of every freaking day. So stuff it, Dave.

Pender
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

“If the shoe were on the other foot, and Prop 8 supporters had driven a gay marriage advocate out of a job at a business that had many Mormon and other conservative Christian types, gays in California — not to mention the Left in general — would be screaming bloody murder.”

Wow, thanks for that insight, Dave. And if Martin Luther King, Jr. supported racism instead of opposing it, then we’d treat him like the KKK instead of a civil rights hero. But the whole point is that in that civil rights struggle as in this one, the two sides are not morally equivalent or even analogous.

grantdale
December 9th, 2008 | LINK

Dave,

If the shoe were on another foot, say, if people were to find out the owners of an establishment were active KKK or active Nazis… I would not need a black person or a Jew to tell me what is the right thing to do. I also would not need to be told what to think if I were to witness a campaign of prejudiced rumours against a Mormon (and yes, that happens).

So spare us the sanctimony: calling out someone on their active support of prejudice is not bullying. Refusing to assist that prejudice is not bullying. Standing up to a bully does not make you a bully.

Rather, if you want to know what bullying actually looks like, turn your gaze to Salt Lake City.

The LDS as an organisation are as welcome as any to decide what rules their members should follow, or to decide what sort of interpretations they want to place on their faiths. But they are plainly not content with that freedom to simply govern their own lives: instead (as we now know), they have been at the core of an 11 year campaign to govern the lives of others; a campaign using negativity, distorted images and whispered rumours, and an all-to-often very willing use of tapping into a longstanding bigotry toward a minority.

Even from this distance away, we can feel the great sense of betrayal among those patrons — gay and straight — who basically kept El Coyote afloat for all these years. Neutrality on this public issue would have saved her, even while holding to her own personal opinions and living her own private life; instead she chose to actively support a disreputable campaign that re-established discrimination into the law.

The targets of that campaign are free to act accordingly; and a community boycott is an entirely valid, non-violent and responsible way for them to act.

You should feel as equally free to visit El Coyote and order up all those margaritas they are (apparently) no longer drinking. Good luck with that, and please do consult with your GP first.

Ben in Oakland
December 10th, 2008 | LINK

Dave– more to the point…

Gay people get fired all the time for the simple crime of being gay. Anti-gays claim that if they are unable to fire gay people etcetcetc, then their freedom of religion is being compromised.

It happens all the time. Someone tried to get me fired many years ago, and i’m fairly certain that it was because i was openly gay in law enforcement.

What is salsa for the taco is salsa for the burrito.

Ryan
December 10th, 2008 | LINK

Hey Dave, if Prop 8 had failed and news came out the the owner of a restaurant that was popular for Mormons (or a Mormon-themed bookstore or whatever) had donated money to No on 8, there is no question at all that the Religious Right would be boycotting that store until that person left the company. No question at all. So why can’t we do it if you can?

Dave
December 10th, 2008 | LINK

grantdale,

Your comment gets to the heart of our disagreement.

Believing that marriage should remain an exclusively heterosexual institution isn’t remotely like the racial hatred promoted by the KKK and the Nazis.

You use the sense of betrayal felt by gay El Coyote customers as justification for your position, but it would be an equal justification for the hypothetical situation in my comment. There the religious believers in traditional marriage would feel betrayed by the employee for supporting same-sex marriage. So what? Is right and wrong just a matter of feelings?

It is absurd for you to accuse me of sanctimony when you self-righteously claim that every traditional marriage supporter is a bully.

You make it sound as if Marjorie went out it public and denounced homosexuals. She didn’t. She privately made a donation to a cause. Whe she did so she was exercising her right as a citizen to participate in the democratic process. Because you don’t like the side she choose doesn’t give you the right to hound her out of her livelihood.

And please note: I am not objecting to protesting the actions of the LDS Church. Nor do I oppose Marjorie’s customers telling her how the feel about the matter. I simply object to protesting and boycotting a business with the intent of costing an employee her job simply because of the side she took in a political campaign.

Dave
December 10th, 2008 | LINK

Ben in Oakland,

Your comment is not more to the point. It isn’t to the point at all.

There has been no suggestion that Marjorie Christoffersen attempted to fire anyone for his position on Prop 8 or anything else.

Anti-gays claim that if they are unable to fire gay people etcetcetc, then their freedom of religion is being compromised.

I know the persecuted like to become the pesecutors. It’s human nature. But that doesn’t make it right.

Ryan
December 10th, 2008 | LINK

Dave, she’s not an “employee”. Her family owns the restaurant and she sits on the board of directors, and was basically the “mascot” of the restaurant. The call was coming from inside the house, as it were.
And she did go out and publicly denounce homosexuals. She made a donation that is a matter of public record. There’s nothing “private” about it. Just because she obviously didn’t expect anyone to find out about it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a public rebuke of the very people that she lives off of. It just blows my mind that you think so little of gay people that you believe we would continue to give money to someone who would in turn use that money against us, effectively donating to Yes on 8 ourselves.
And my above comment which you ignored still stands. Why would it be okay for you to do it, but not us?

Dave
December 10th, 2008 | LINK

Ryan,

You insist that,

“if Prop 8 had failed and news came out the the owner of a restaurant that was popular for Mormons (or a Mormon-themed bookstore or whatever) had donated money to No on 8, there is no question at all that the Religious Right would be boycotting that store until that person left the company.”

I don’t think you should be so sure. We have heard of pro-gay Mormons getting into trouble with the LDS Church over their positions, but to my knowledge there has been no news of such people having their businesses boycotted by fellow Mormons or by Evangelicals. (After all, some pro-gay Mormons are bound to be business owners.)

“So why can’t we do it if you can?”

Politics is a rough affair, Ryan. We can’t always afford to take the attitude that two wrongs don’t make a right. However, if you’re going to fight fire with fire, so to speak, I think you should be sure the other side really has committed the offense first.

There are two further things wrong with this statement.

First, my concern isn’t about what people can or can’t do. It is about what people should and shouldn’t do.

Second, you are assuming a fact not in evidence: That I am a member of the Religious Right. Why? I don’t have to be a member in order to defend someone in Marjorie Christoffersen’s situation.

For the record: I am not part of the Religious Right. If I did practice a religion (I don’t at present) I certainly wouldn’t practice one that fell within that group.

Dave
December 10th, 2008 | LINK

Ryan,

Her donation is a matter of public record because the law requires that it be so. She didn’t go out of her way to make it public.

The fact that Marjorie was on the board and that her family owns the business is neither here nor there. She works for the restaurant and the protestors wanted that to change.

As for her being the restaurant’s “mascot” — well, if she was, so what? Was Scott Eckern a mascot for the CMT? Was Richard Raddon a mascot for the LA Film Festival? The answer to these questions is no. It didn’t help them any though, did it?

It just blows my mind that you think so little of gay people that you believe we would continue to give money to someone who would in turn use that money against us, effectively donating to Yes on 8 ourselves.

Please, Ryan, do not presume to know what I think of gay people. You do not even know whether or not I am a gay person myself.

I do not care if you don’t want to spend money at El Coyote. I only care about targeting a business for the purpose of obtaining particular employees’ scalps.

However, if you’re going to worry about how the employees of every business you patronize donate to political causes…. well, let’s just say you’ll have no time to worry about anything else. The only way to avoid indirectly donating in that manner is to never spend any money at all.

I haven’t ignored you, Ryan. I have had a number of contentious arguments with Tim Kincaid here at BTB. The last one got me put on moderation. My comments won’t appear until the are approved. Just be patient. ;)

Ryan
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

“The fact that Marjorie was on the board and that her family owns the business is neither here nor there. ”

Actually, it negates the lynch pin of your argument against boycotting El Coyote. Your statement that she was “just” an employee.

“I don’t think you should be so sure.”

I do. And furthermore, I find it pretty difficult to believe you believe otherwise. They boycotted McDonald’s for donating money to the Gay and Lesbian chamber of Commerce. They regularly boycott companies that offer benefits to same sex partners. They sent letters to companies who donated to No on 8 prior to the election, threatening to boycott companies unless they also donated to Yes on 8. It’s a no brainer they would have.

Raddon was the festival director. Eckern was the artistic director. Playwrights in Sacramento said they no longer felt comfortable working with someone who had contempt for them. It’s pretty crazy that you feel that they should push those aside feelings and work him anyway. Give him money so he can give it to the next anti-gay vote. And it’s “wrong” if he refuse to work with him.

“And please note: I am not objecting to protesting the actions of the LDS Church. Nor do I oppose Marjorie’s customers telling her how they feel about the matter.”

Ah, wonderful. We can tell her how we feel (meaningless) as long as we keep buying her food. I’m sure that’s she’ll really give a damn.

“Please, Ryan, do not presume to know what I think of gay people. You do not even know whether or not I am a gay person myself.”

If you think it’s wrong to refuse to give money to people who dislike us, then I am well aware of what you think of gay people, regardless or you yourself are gay or not. And the fact that you played coy about it speaks volumes.

Ben in Oakland
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

Actually, dave, it is exactly the point.

Anti-gays can claim that this isn’t about prejudice, it’s about marriage.

Honey, it is about anti-gay prejudice, just like it has always been. We don’t like you, we don’t approve, we’ll make your life difficult and unpleasant. but we’ll tell you we love you.

the love isn’t for ME. That’s to make YOU (a generic you, not personal) feel better.

to quote myself: “I have been fed up all my life, as far back as I can remember, with being treated as less than a whole person, as not good enough, not citizen enough, not human enough, to allow me the simple dignity and respect of living my life in peace. Well, actually they will allow that, as long as I don’t demand and end to this prejudice, or equality before the law — or respect, or dignity, or to live my life in peace.”

i’m not going to get into a long debate with you about it. I’ve lived long enough, and seen enough of the anti-gay garbage, whether presented as sincere rleigious belief or admitted for what it is, to know that it is not, and never has been, about anything other than how much the very existence of gay people bothers and offends some straight people, and some-wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t people.

Dave
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

Ah, Ryan,

“it negates the lynch pin of your argument against boycotting El Coyote.”

How so? A board member works for the owners of a business. A family member who works for you is still an employee.

“Your statement that she was “just” an employee.”

Said statement is a figment of your imagination. I never wrote about Marjorie being “just” anything.

“I do.”

Really? Then where are the boycotts of Marriot hotels by right-wing Christians because Mr. Marriot himself said he had nothing to do with Prop 8 and doesn’t want to be associated with it? Doesn’t that make him some sort of traitor to Mormonism?

Where are the published black-lists of people who donated to the campaigns against the no-gay-marriage amendments in Arizona, California, and Florida?

The boycotting of McDonalds and other companies for their company policies isn’t at all like the boycotting that pressured Eckern, Raddon, and Christoffersen into resigning.

The only thing you can point to is that appalling extortion letter from some of the Prop 8 leaders. That one instance does not justify your assumption about the Christian Right.

That letter was sent out after gay rights activists had begun boycotting businesses owned by Yes on 8 donors. The foolish attempt at turnabout against opposition business owners does not provide any evidence that the Christian Right would organize campaigns against the jobs of No on 8 employees.

“It’s pretty crazy that you feel that they should push those aside feelings and work him anyway.”

You’re making assumptions again. I never said they should push any feelings aside. Playwrights (and others) can choose to not work with whomever they wish.

“We can tell her how we feel (meaningless) as long as we keep buying her food.”

I didn’t say anyone had to keep buying her food. I told grantdale, “I simply object to protesting and boycotting a business with the intent of costing an employee her job simply because of the side she took in a political campaign.”

You didn’t read my reply all that well, Ryan. I wrote: “I do not care if you don’t want to spend money at El Coyote. I only care about targeting a business for the purpose of obtaining particular employees’ scalps.”

Do you find my position that terrible? Would you like someone to target your job because they didn’t like a political donation you made?

If you think it’s wrong to refuse to give money to people who dislike us, then I am well aware of what you think of gay people, regardless or you yourself are gay or not. And the fact that you played coy about it speaks volumes.

Do tell.

It is pure paranoia to assume that every opponent of granting same-sex couples spousal privileges under the title of “marriage” is someone who dislikes gay people. Anyway, as I’ve said umteen times already, I don’t care about with whom you refuse to do business.

I haven’t said anything about my sexual orientation here at BTB because I don’t want any such information to influence how people respond to me. But please feel free to tell us all just how much this says about me.

Dave
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

Ben in Oakland,

“Actually, dave, it is exactly the point.”

In what way? How does the assertion that “gay people get fired all the time for the simple crime of being gay” justify boycotting a business for the purpose of costing an employee his job over a political donation?

You’re comparing apples and pineapples. The bad behavior of some employers doens’t justify making war on a person’s career because of his political participation.

“it is about anti-gay prejudice, just like it has always been.”

So the many millions of Americans who think gay couples are entitled to spousal privileges and protections, but do not believe in same-sex marriage, are all anti-homosexual bigots? You are drowning in victimism, Ben. Your own final paragraph makes that clear:

I’ve lived long enough, and seen enough of the anti-gay garbage, whether presented as sincere [religious] belief or admitted for what it is, to know that it is not, and never has been, about anything other than how much the very existence of gay people bothers and offends some straight people, and some-wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t people.

No, Ben, the marriage debate is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. But you’ll never see that until you get over your ‘I’m a perpetual victim’ mentality.

And please, don’t call me honey.

Nevada Blue
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

DAVE: “I simply object to protesting and boycotting a business with the intent of costing an employee her job simply because of the side she took in a political campaign.”

I don’t think its that simple even for those that might have implied it here. Ultimately, it’s about giving financial support to suppress marriage equality. I don’t want one penny of my money to do that. Yes, I understand that some has or will eventually go that way, but in those instances where it can be controlled, why not?

I don’t check out every company that I do business with and I don’t boycott every business I disagree with.

I imagine Margorie and many others are equating this to give $100; lose a job and how unbalanced that appears. They are missing the point. The $100 donation pointed out what was already happening, but hidden.

I don’t think Marjorie’s customers behaved inappropriately at all. They went out of their way to let her explain, and she stood by her actions (courageously, I admit). I give Marjorie props for meeting with her customers and props for stepping down. I am worried about her well-being, but I still don’t want to give any of my money to anti-gay activists when I can help it. Given that we know Mormons are required to tithe 10% and that we know Marjorie dutifully does as her church asks her, I don’t see how it can be inappropriate to boycott her business.

Ryan
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

“I didn’t say anyone had to keep buying her food. I told grantdale, “I simply object to protesting and boycotting a business with the intent of costing an employee her job simply because of the side she took in a political campaign.”

So, what is a boycott in this instance if not a refusal to buy food from her?

“You’re making assumptions again. I never said they should push any feelings aside. Playwrights (and others) can choose to not work with whomever they wish”.

So what is a boycott in this instance if not a refusal to allow your plays to be in this man’s theatre?

You’re talking about of both sides of your mouth. You’re fine with people refusing to eat at El Coyote or refusing to work with Scott, but you just don’t like the word “boycott”? If we call it something else, will you be okay with it? Because we seem to be arguing semantics here. A boycott is for a purpose. It is used when a group of individuals wants to use their financial power to influence a company’s actions. In these instances, yes the purpose was for one “employee’s” (eyeroll) scalp, as you put it. Because, as an idea, working with or buying food from these people became morally repugnant. No chance at all the Mormon’s wouldn’t do the same if the owner of a Mormon business donated to Yes on 8. No chance at all. By many accounts, they went around threatening individuals with a loss of standing in the church and eternal damnation if they didn’t donate money to Yes on 8, you don’t think they would do it if a Mormon business had donated. Please. I honestly don’t know if you’re being really naive or utterly disingenuous.

And again, she is in no way an “employee”. You would know this if you’ve ever worked with the child of the owner of a business. Who was also on the Board of Directors. Or if you’ve ever been to El Coyote.

{” I’ve lived long enough, and seen enough of the anti-gay garbage, whether presented as sincere [religious] belief or admitted for what it is, to know that it is not, and never has been, about anything other than how much the very existence of gay people bothers and offends some straight people, and some-wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t people.”}

“No, Ben, the marriage debate is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. But you’ll never see that until you get over your ‘I’m a perpetual victim’ mentality.”

No Dave, it’s really really not. That’s the whole thing in a nutshell. Really. You’ll never find a single person who’s against gay marriage that doesn’t start out with (at least) the assumption that there’s something just a little bit distasteful about being gay. We have Group A and Group B. We have two items; Thing X and Thing Y. If Group A thinks Thing X should be reserved exclusively for them, because Thing X needs to be “protected” and kept away from Group B, and Group B should be happy with Thing Y, after all there’s really “no difference” between Thing X and Thing Y, then the only possible explanation is that there’s something Group A finds objectionable about Group B. That’s literally the only possible explanation. If there’s no difference between X and Y then why can’t Group B have either one, as Group A can? Why does Thing X need protecting?

And I don’t have a “I’m a perpetual victim” mentality. Someone with that mentality would’ve continued eating at El Coyote.

“Really? Then where are the boycotts of Marriot hotels by right-wing Christians because Mr. Marriot himself said he had nothing to do with Prop 8 and doesn’t want to be associated with it? Doesn’t that make him some sort of traitor to Mormonism?

Where are the published black-lists of people who donated to the campaigns against the no-gay-marriage amendments in Arizona, California, and Florida?”

Uh, they won Dave. No boycotts necessary.

“But please feel free to tell us all just how much this says about me.”

Nah, anyone too ashamed to say who they are deserves only pity. I won’t pile on.

Ryan
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

Oh, and Dave, I would direct your attention to the very timely latest post from BTB, entitled “Top Evangelical Leader Resigns After Voicing Support for Civil Unions”. Kind of speaks to this very issue, does it not?

And for the record, I have no problem with the members of his religion wanting this particular employee (see, I can do it too!) out. His views are morally repugnant to them. They have every right.

Dave
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

Nevada Blue,

I thank you for your very reasonable reply.

However (and you knew there had to be a however coming, didn’t you?), when you say “Ultimately, it’s about giving financial support to suppress marriage equality,” you are making the same argument that Pender made when he said, “the two sides are not morally equivalent or even analogous.”

In many political conflicts the opposing sides will say that their opponents’ cause is not morally equal to their own. They may or may not be right about that; the point is that the claim will often be made.

My point is that moral preening of this kind, whether justified or not, doesn’t warrent turning political disagreements into personal attacks of the kind Marjorie Christoffersen endured.

I want to be perfectly clear here. If Marjorie’s customers were offended by her donation, they had a perfect right to say so. They also had a right to stop visiting the restaurant if they so wished. What bothers me is the campaign of picketing and protesting that had as its aim getting Marjorie fired or forcing her to resign.

Democracy cannot last if every political dipute can become cause for going after someone’s livelihood.

John
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

Targeting individuals and businesses that contribute to discrimination against gays and lesbians is a great tactic. If these bigots are so proud their actions, they should happy to have their bigotry exposed to the light of day. We need to keep up the pressure against the Mormon Church and it’s foot soldiers.

Dave
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

Ryan,

Talking out of both sides of my mouth? Hardly. I am making distinctions.

I wrote to grantdale:

She privately made a donation to a cause. Whe she did so she was exercising her right as a citizen to participate in the democratic process. Because you don’t like the side she choose doesn’t give you the right to hound her out of her livelihood.

I am not objecting to protesting the actions of the LDS Church. Nor do I oppose Marjorie’s customers telling her how the feel about the matter. I simply object to protesting and boycotting a business with the intent of costing an employee her job simply because of the side she took in a political campaign.

To you I wrote:

I do not care if you don’t want to spend money at El Coyote. I only care about targeting a business for the purpose of obtaining particular employees’ scalps.

Would you like someone to target your job because they didn’t like a political donation you made?

And I just told Nevada Blue:

What bothers me is the campaign of picketing and protesting that had as its aim getting Marjorie fired or forcing her to resign.

Democracy cannot last if every political dipute can become cause for going after someone’s livelihood.

This should make plain just what my objection is. If you don’t want to do business with someone then don’t. But don’t get together with others and start a campaign to squeeze that person out of his job.

You insist she was “in no way an employee.” That’s just wrong (and silly). If she worked for the restaurant and received a paycheck, she was an employee. Just as Eckern and Raddon were employees.

“No chance at all the Mormon’s wouldn’t do the same if the owner of a Mormon business donated to Yes on 8. No chance at all.”

You’ve made this assertion more than once. I think you now owe us some evidence.

Please provide three instances (to match Christofferson, Eckern, and Raddon) of Mormon employees/business owners facing pickets and other protests meant to cost them their jobs because they supported the No campaigns in Arizona or California.

“Uh, they won Dave. No boycotts necessary. “

So say you. Winning doesn’t mean you don’t have a desire to punish.

And wasn’t there a list published on the world wide web of Florida residences who donated to the pro-amendment campaign before it passed? Where was the list of people who donated to the anti-amendment campaign?

“You’ll never find a single person who’s against gay marriage that doesn’t start out with (at least) the assumption that there’s something just a little bit distasteful about being gay.”

For many people, Ryan, the complementary nature of the two sexes is fundamental to marriage. That requires no anti-homosexual feeling whatsoever. This is why most Americans believe gay couples are entitled to spousal rights but still oppose same-sex marrige. Your problem is you can’t wrap your head around this fact. That’s a shame.

“anyone too ashamed to say who they are deserves only pity. I won’t pile on.

And anyone who responded to my explanation this way deserves only contempt. But I won’t pile on either.

John
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

Dave finds it easy to be insulted and have only contempt for someone who makes an unkind remark. Yet, he seems to be utterly blind to the contempt that Marjorie showed to all her customers by joining with her Mormon Church in their hateful campaign to take marriage rights from gays and lesbians. She contributed to a campaign that ran non-stop comercials throughout California painting gays and lesbians as a threat to children. To this day she doesn’t regret it (other than the fact that the news got out).

Gay people lose their jobs, because they are gay. Dave hasn’t mentioned what he has done to register his anger towards that practice. Too many gay people lose access to the kids they have raised when relationships break up or partners die, whereas they would be more protected in a legally recognized marriage. Too many gays lose their homes and financial security when their partner dies, whereas their tax liability and inheritance rights would be more protected if they were in a legally recognized marriage. Dave doesn’t seem the least worked up about that either.

Marjorie supports denying gays and lesbians legal protections that could keep them from losing their homes, businesses and children, but wants us to get worked up about her business being in trouble, because she advocates and supports discrimination against many of her customers. Sorry, I’ll save my tears for people who are the victims of true injustice.

Ryan
December 11th, 2008 | LINK

Pretty unbelievable, Dave. The hairsplitting is downright diabolical.

So, to recap: It’s okay for playwrights to say they won’t work with Eckert, but it’s not okay if they say they’ll continue to work with the Sac Theatre Company when he’s gone. It’s okay to object to Margie did, it’s okay to boycott El Coyote because of what Margie did, but it’s not okay to boycott if you want Margie fired. That’s what boycotts are for, Dave. To effect change in a company. What this company did was unforgivable in the eyes of many of its clientele. We demanded redress. And we got it. This is what America is.

Most gay people don’t see the fight for marriage equality as just another “political opinion”. They see it as morally repugnant, and they won’t fund it if they can at all help it. This is not only reasonable, it is noble.

“For many people, Ryan, the complementary nature of the two sexes is fundamental to marriage. That requires no anti-homosexual feeling whatsoever.”

No Dave, the “shame” is you think people’s personal feelings about marriage should dictate the law. Or that saying something should be “reserved” for one group and kept from another requires no animus towards the later group. That’s really a shame. I invite you to go on Mormon and Christian websites and blogs referring to Prop 8. I’ll let you decide if you see any “dislike” for gay people.

“You’ve made this assertion more than once. I think you now owe us some evidence.”

Well, they’re not Mormons granted, but I already pointed out the BTB post in my comments above. I seriously doubt there are any Mormon business owners who dared to cross the church on this issue. And your attempt to paint Mormons as some sort of keepers of the moral highground is both absurd and laughable. These are the people who shook down their own congregation with threats of eternal damnation.

“And wasn’t there a list published on the world wide web of Florida residences who donated to the pro-amendment campaign before it passed?”

I have not heard of this. I find it hard to believe that information would be released to the public in the first place when you make a private donation. But if gay rights activists really did publish such a list with people’s home addresses, then shame on them. That’s very wrong. It’s also completely off-topic and nice little dodge.

“So say you. Winning doesn’t mean you don’t have a desire to punish.”

Actually, usually it does.

‘And anyone who responded to my explanation this way deserves only contempt”.

Yeah. That explanation was…interesting.

Dave
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

Ryan,

I do not have the linguistic resources to get through to a skull made of titanium, so this will be the last time I attempt to explain myself.

The problem I have with the efforts against Marjorie is that it was an organized campaign to cost her her job. People may avoid or not avoid a business as they see fit; it is colluding to get someone sacked that I consider beyond the pale.

If you haven’t gotten it now it is because you don’t want to. I’m not going to spend my life worrying about your willful obtuseness.

“Most gay people don’t see the fight for marriage equality as just another “political opinion”. “

And believers in traditional heterosexual marriage don’t see their fight to maintain it as just another political issue either. Yet I don’t see the Yes on 8 crowd going after No on 8 donors’ jobs. You may say that’s because they won. But their fellows didn’t win in Massachussets and Connecticut. Where are the attacks on the livilihoods of gay marriage supporters in those states?

“the “shame” is you think people’s personal feelings about marriage should dictate the law. “

What?! That’s what you got out of my explanation of how most Americans both oppose gay marriage and believe in spousal privileges for gay couples? How did you manage that?

And I have to say you have a fat lot of nerve condemning the use of feelings as a basis for one’s positions when it was obviously your emotional reaction to my comments that made you assume I was a right-wing Christian, then assume I can’t possibly be gay, then to assume you know what a low opinion I have of gay people. Sheesh.

“Or that saying something should be “reserved” for one group and kept from another requires no animus towards the later group.”

Then what is your explanation of those people who want same-sex couples to have spousal privileges yet still oppose the institution of same-sex marriage?

“I already pointed out the BTB post in my comments above.”

A religious leader getting flak for statements touching on matters of religious doctrine is in no way like a private citizen being hounded into resigning his job over a political donation.

I asked for three pieces of evidence; you’ve given exactly zero.

“I invite you to go on Mormon and Christian websites and blogs referring to Prop 8. I’ll let you decide if you see any “dislike” for gay people. … your attempt to paint Mormons as some sort of keepers of the moral highground is both absurd and laughable.”

I never painted, nor attempted to paint, the Mormons (or any other religious sect) as “keepers of the moral highground.”

I am well aware of the fear and loathing of homosexuality that exists in relgious circles. I do not like it; it saddens and angers me. However, I do not therefore assume the worst about all conservative religious people.

“I have not heard of this. I find it hard to believe that information would be released to the public in the first place when you make a private donation. … It’s also completely off-topic and nice little dodge.”

If donation’s aren’t made public, then how did people find out about Marjorie’s? I already said above that such info is public record by law. And do you mean you never even heard of this?

A dodge? A dodge? You must be kidding! We were having a discussion about the vindictiveness of the two opposing sides. You tell me that the fact that the anti-gay marriage crowd isn’t trying to punish anyone doesn’t mean anything because they won; I counter that the pro-gay marriage crowd in Florida tried to humiliate (a punishment) their opponents before any vote took place. And that’s a dodge? Oh la la!

werdna
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

John wrote:

Gay people lose their jobs, because they are gay. Dave hasn’t mentioned what he has done to register his anger towards that practice.

Actually he has.

Ben in Oakland
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

Here you go, Dave.

no, dave. I’m not a victim-not yet. But I am well aware of what prejudice and bias are.As some have alreeady pointed out, the very fact that people think I should be treated differently than they are is an indication of bias.

Everything yes on 8 had to say was not pro-marriage, whatever that means, it was anti-gay. So there is no bias?

The gays are gona get your children. the gays are goin to destroy marriage. they are attacking the family, faith, and freedom. they are not anti-gay. they just have an opinion.

I’m not interested in victimism, whatever that might be. There may be some people who are only interested in “defending” marriage, whatever that might be. But then I have to ask… Protect marriage? From me? Why would it need protecting from me?what will I do to it? The fact remains that preventing me from getting married does not do a thing towards protecting marriage. it just prevents me and my hypotethical children from having the same rights as anyone else.

Ben in Oakland
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

“the complementary nature of the two sexes is fundamental to marriage. That requires no anti-homosexual feeling whatsoever.”

the fact remains htat many, if not most, do

“This is why most Americans believe gay couples are entitled to spousal rights but still oppose same-sex marriage.”

But i bet if they were given a chance to vote on it, they would vote against it, as in florida.

Ryan
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

“I am well aware of the fear and loathing of homosexuality that exists in relgious circles. I do not like it; it saddens and angers me.”

Yes. You seemed devastated.

Uh, Dave? You said “residences”. You said that quite clearly. There are no residence’s addresses in the link provided. There are company names, and their donations are part of the public record. It is perfectly legal and right to publish that list. So yes, a deliberate deception and dodge.

“Then what is your explanation of those people who want same-sex couples to have spousal privileges yet still oppose the institution of same-sex marriage?”

Huh? The explanation is what you JUST QUOTED. “Or that saying something should be “reserved” for one group and kept from another requires no animus towards the later group.” That’s my explanation. That right there. They think something should be “reserved” and “protected” for one group which can only mean they have distaste for the other. Yes, even if they support the “same” spousal privileges for gay couples, which by definition can’t be “the same” because if Civil Unions and marriages were exactly the same then no one could possibly object to one and not the other. Get it?

“A religious leader getting flak for statements touching on matters of religious doctrine is in no way like a private citizen being hounded into resigning his job over a political donation.”

Wow, Dave. “getting flak”? Maybe you should read the post. Or are you attempting again to deliberately deceive? He didn’t “get flak”. He was FORCED TO RESIGN. EXACTLY the same as Margie. He was an employee of the church who was FORCED TO RESIGN because of his POLITICAL OPINION. Couldn’t be more similar. Oh, except for the fact he didn’t even donate to anything!

” Gay people lose their jobs, because they are gay. Dave hasn’t mentioned what he has done to register his anger towards that practice.

Actually he has.”

Holy crap! So you think it would be okay for a person to be fired for being gay, black, or jewish, but shouldn’t be targeted for voicing a political opinion. I don’t even know what to say anymore but, “wow”! I really, really hope I’m wrong and you’re not gay.

“The problem I have with the efforts against Marjorie is that it was an organized campaign to cost her her job. People may avoid or not avoid a business as they see fit; it is colluding to get someone sacked that I consider beyond the pale.”

Well, maybe if we all offer a heartfelt teary apology that will make it all better. That’s what Margie thought would work.

Ryan
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

Oh yeah, forgot this one (there were so many)

“You may say that’s because they won. But their fellows didn’t win in Massachussets and Connecticut. Where are the attacks on the livilihoods of gay marriage supporters in those states?”

You are aware of the fact that there were no votes in those states, aren’t you? Also, saying that Mormons would never “target” owners of popular Mormon establishments who donated to Yes on 8 (ludicrous) is indeed implying that they have the moral high ground.

Timothy Kincaid
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

It seems to me that Dave is searching for some standard on which to hang his indignation.

He allows that gays may be upset by Margie’s actions.
He allows that we may not wish to spend our money in a way that will be used to disadvantage our rights.
He allows that boycotts or other economic action against businesses is acceptable (or at least the anti-gay actions against businesses are).

The sticking point Dave seems to be making is:

An employee of a business – regardless of the extent to which the employee is indistinguishable from the business – should not be targeted by boycott or pickets.

I think that is nonsense, personally. And on that we’ll just have to disagree.

If Dave wishes to believe this statement, I’ll not seek to disuade him. He’s entitled to his beliefs whether they are logical or as bizarre as this one.

His moral indignation only serves as an argument if others agree with the objectionable nature of the action. “But she wore blue!!!” only works to raise concern if everyone agrees that wearing blue is bad.

Dave can go on objecting to how AWFUL it is to target the manager/family owner/mascot of a business. But if no one else thinks that this is a horrible thing then he’s pretty much left with bitching to himself.

I’d advise that he be left doing so.

Ben in Oakland
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

I do have two last comments regarding Dave’s idea that pro-marriage people are just that, and don’t have an anti-gay bone in their gelatinous bodies. they love us, they really love us.

Nobel prize-winner Peter Medawar on Teilhard de chardin:

“the author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others, he has taken great pains to deceive himself.”

And quoting one of my very favorite authors, Ben in Oakland:

“A host of good Christians are all happy to 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.”
Sorry, if that’s love, I prefer hatred. ‘Nuff said.

TJ McFisty
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

Yes, even if they support the “same” spousal privileges for gay couples, which by definition can’t be “the same” because if Civil Unions and marriages were exactly the same then no one could possibly object to one and not the other. Get it?

Again, it’s all about that big dumb word silly skraights seem to think they own. I’m just going to call mine a smishMarriage when I get one and give silly skraights that don’t like it the finger.

Really just a little past this whole “But but but you can’t have the word “marriage” cuz it’s so sacred–SO sacred we made game shows out of it! but you can’t have it cuz of all the buttsecks! Wah! I don’t like your behavior and what I say goes and I got to vote against you and you have to take it and like it. Nyah!”

Whatever. Just start saying “Suck it.” Praise be Kathy Griffin.

Nevada Blue
December 12th, 2008 | LINK

Though I do not understand why considerate people would be so alarmed about others’ civil marriages, it is clear that many are.

Maybe this does have something to do with “the complementary nature of the two sexes,” and really isn’t bigotry, however unconscious. But even if I acknowledge this, the marriage equality side trumps the complementary nature side because they are not attempting to stop others from doing what they themselves do. I don’t care if this is an emotional issue. Most bad behavior, and for that matter good behavior, is emotionally driven.

Whether people are pro-prop 8 due to their feelings about nature, their worries about the economic costs or from a deep seated hatred of homosexuality, none are willing to acknowledge that they are working to keep a group of people from benefiting from what they already receive. As is apparent from the comments posted here, it is very difficult to perceive this refusal as anything other than biased hatred.

I can be passive aggressive. It’s annoying and hurtful to my victims, and I don’t want to be that way, so I try to watch myself. I strongly suspect that most Prop 8 supporters do not want to be known as bigots. I think that is why they spend so much time explaining why they are not bigots. I want them to admit they are bigots and even to fight their own bigotry. When I successfully identify my PA behavior it makes it possible to rectify it. Sometimes it works; sometimes not. But it can never be rectified if I refuse to identify it.

Dave
December 13th, 2008 | LINK

Ben in Oakland,

If you are not interested in victimism, you must forgive me for thinking you were. After all, you certainly did an excellent impersonation of someone caught up in victimism when you assumed opposition to same-sex marriage must originate in fear or hatred of homosexuals.

“the very fact that people think I should be treated differently than they are is an indication of bias.

Everything yes on 8 had to say was not pro-marriage, whatever that means, it was anti-gay. So there is no bias?

The traditional marriage crowd isn’t really asking for the law to treat gays differently than straights; they want to maintain the legal definition of marriage as a monogamous heterosexual union. That is a bias, of course, but it isn’t a bias against individuals. (Of course they may also be guilty of indifference or hostility to homosexual couples. I’m just saying that is separate from the desire to keep marriage as traditionally defined.)

As for the Yes on 8 campaign, the bad behavior of the campaign’s leaders cannot be blamed on all the voters who voted for the amendment. Similarly, the existence of homophobia within the Yes crowd doesn’t prove it to be a universal fact of the Yes crowd.

“i bet if they were given a chance to vote on it, they would vote against it, as in florida.”

The people of Arizona had a chance to vote on an amendment like Florida’s; they voted it down. The people of California could have a referendum to eliminate domestic partnerships for gay couples. Doing so is not even under discussion. The peoples of Connecticut, Vermont, and New Jersey haven’t risen up against spousal privileges for same-sex couples. So where is the evidence for your assertion?

As for the Sunshine State, the Florida amemdment passed in a year when courts in Calfornia and Connecticut intervened in the controversy — something the public doesn’t like. Had that not happened, the broadness of the amendment might have doomed it.

“I have to ask… Protect marriage? From me? Why would it need protecting from me?”

Ben, marriage traditionalists aren’t trying to defend marriage from you. It isn’t that most of them think gay people have marriage-destroying cooties or something. They want to preserve the symbolic and social aspects of marriage that pertain to it being a union of the opposite sexes.

If the political society of the United States functioned like the founders hoped, a compromise that accomodated the concerns of marriage traditionalists and the those of gay couples could be reached. But nowadays the unending war between radicals and reactionaries keeps the nation in a state of perpetual agitation.

Of course, one of the problems is that marriage started with in the cultural realm, which is just where it should have. The recognition of gay unions, however, has started in the political/legal realm and will need to move into the culture from there — the exact opposite of what happened with heterosexual marriage.

Dave
December 13th, 2008 | LINK

Nevada Blue,

“”I don’t care if this is an emotional issue. Most bad behavior, and for that matter good behavior, is emotionally driven.”

Emotions can certainly fuel our political activity, and that’s not wrong. But it is dangerous to allow emotion to take the lead. As Pascal said, “Where passion is high, reason is low.” Emotion can power the engine, but it’s best for the intellect to do the driving.

“the marriage equality side trumps the complementary nature side because they are not attempting to stop others from doing what they themselves do.”

Strictly speaking, the marriage traditionalists aren’t trying to stop anyone from doing anything when they get marriage constitutionally defined as monogamous and heterosexual. Gay couples still can be married in a church that recognizes such weddings, for instance.

“none are willing to acknowledge that they are working to keep a group of people from benefiting from what they already receive.”

Don’t paint with too broad a brush. Only those marriage traditionalists who are opposed to any state recognition or protection for homosexual couples are guilty of this.

There are marriage traditionists who simply think that heterosexuality and homosexuality, being different, should be intergrated into society with different institutions. Scott Eckern, who was squeezed into resigning his position at the CMT, seems to be one such traditionalist.

I find your suggestion that passive-agressive behavior is at work amongst gay rights opponents very interesting. Definitely worth pursuing.

Dave
December 13th, 2008 | LINK

Werdna,

I’m pleased you follow my comments so closely you so easily recalled a conversation from a month ago.

Alas, you’ve misinterpreted. Those comments have nothing to do with expressing the topic at hand.

John was right: I haven’t expressed any anger at the firing of gay people here at BTB. Is the issue relevent to anything I’ve commented on?

You should’ve noticed, Werdna, I didn’t respond to John. I didn’t think his comment deserved a response. I still don’t.

Dave
December 13th, 2008 | LINK

Uh, Dave? You said “residences”. You said that quite clearly. There are no residence’s addresses in the link provided. There are company names, and their donations are part of the public record. It is perfectly legal and right to publish that list. So yes, a deliberate deception and dodge.

Ryan,

The link provided was about donors to Prop 8 in California. As far as I can tell, the page about the Florida matter is no longer online. That list was created by going to local county clerks offices, if my memory serves me well.

My sentence read “Florida residences who donated.” The pronoun should’ve revealed what happened: I typed in the wrong word. I meant to say ‘Florida residents who donated.’ That list did contain the addresses of the donors which is probably why I made that mistake.

Anyway, thanks for taking my honest mistake for something nefarious. I always love it when I look evil.

That’s my explanation. That right there. They think something should be “reserved” and “protected” for one group which can only mean they have distaste for the other. Yes, even if they support the “same” spousal privileges for gay couples, which by definition can’t be “the same” because if Civil Unions and marriages were exactly the same then no one could possibly object to one and not the other. Get it?

That’s hardly an explanation for why such people don’t fall into the no legal protections of any kind category.

Wow, Dave. “getting flak”? Maybe you should read the post. Or are you attempting again to deliberately deceive? He didn’t “get flak”. He was FORCED TO RESIGN. EXACTLY the same as Margie. He was an employee of the church who was FORCED TO RESIGN because of his POLITICAL OPINION. Couldn’t be more similar. Oh, except for the fact he didn’t even donate to anything!

Richard Cizik wasn’t just an employee of some secular organization. He is a religious leader. His case is analogous to a Catholic Bishop resigning after questions were raised as to his faithfulness to Catholic teaching. If we follow that anology to a situation like Marjorie’s, then we would have a restaurant manager being coerced into resigning for disobeying his church’s catechism.

I think you can see why what is viewed as normal for religious leaders seems perverse for restaurant managers: Restaurants don’t exist to promulgate religious doctrine. Well, they don’t have anything to do with marriage laws either.

“You are aware of the fact that there were no votes in those states, aren’t you? Also, saying that Mormons would never “target” owners of popular Mormon establishments who donated to Yes on 8 (ludicrous) is indeed implying that they have the moral high ground.”

The absence of a vote in a state doesn’t mean there are no gay marriage proponents in the state who could be identified and targeted, now does it?

As for the Mormons,I never said they wouldn’t ever do anything; I said you shouldn’t be so certain they would do certain things when there is no evidence for them doing such things.

“Holy crap! So you think it would be okay for a person to be fired for being gay, black, or jewish, but shouldn’t be targeted for voicing a political opinion. I don’t even know what to say anymore but, “wow”! I really, really hope I’m wrong and you’re not gay.”

You have no idea how much amusement this paragraph gave me, Ryan. I have to thank you for the laugh. The bit about you now hoping I’m not gay is especially rich. I really am loving this! :)

Strangely, I don’t recall saying that freedom of association couldn’t include politics….

But then it is already known that freedom of speech doesn’t protect you from your employer, right? You did know that, didn’t you?

Not wanting the government to deny freedom of association to employers is not the same as being okay with whatever employment decisions an employer makes. Just as wanting the government to respect freedom of speech and of religion means you are okay with Fred Phelps and his clan.

If Christoffersen, Eckern, or Raddon, had been in a dispute with his employer, it would just have been employee versus employer. But the actual situation was employee versus California’s gay activists. You have again compared apples and pineapples.

Oh, and as for your fervent hope that I’m not gay, well…. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaa!

“Well, maybe if we all offer a heartfelt teary apology that will make it all better.”

Hmmm. It just might at that. Perhaps she would return to El Coyote if such an apology was made. You should try it.

Dave
December 13th, 2008 | LINK

Ryan,

I wrote to you: “I am well aware of the fear and loathing of homosexuality that exists in relgious circles. I do not like it; it saddens and angers me.”

You replied, “Yes. You seemed devastated.”

You have yet again presumed to be able to read my heart and mind. And you have implied I am a liar for the umpteenth time.

I will not further attempt to disabuse you of your low opinion of my honesty. But I see now reason to continue conversing with someone who thinks I’m allergic to the truth.

Leo H
December 20th, 2008 | LINK

Talk about a BACK Stabber!!
And to tell the truth…I always ate dinner before I met up with my friends there. This place has really really terrible mormon style Mexican food. I just show up for a few drinks and munch on some chips (They) and I love the staff…who are the real loser in this situation. I don’t think my community will ever return to El Coyote on Thursdays or anyday of the week. There are so so many other great places to hang out in LA that are truly Gay friendly…. And in this town…when the gays leave…so goes the straights. Hollywood does not “do” what is not hip with the gays.
….and it is Margie’s right to contribute to any political whatever she chooses. It’s her money. And it is also my (our) right to not spend my hard earn money at El Coyote anymore. This is a free country to speak “your” mind. Just remember Margie….that there is also a consequence to every action. Your action has not only affected you but everyone else who works at El Coyote and beyond.
I am choosing to not spend another dime there!

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.