Gay Patriot Header Image

GayPatriot LA Outing to El Coyote

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:37 pm - December 29, 2008.
Filed under: Gay Marriage,Gay PC Silliness,LA Stories

Because the Los Angeles restaurant El Coyote, long a favorite of Angeleno gays, has lost a considerable amount of business when angry gay activists chose to boycott the place because one of its employees contributed to the “Yes on 8″ campaign, I would like to organize an outing for our readers to dine at that iconic establishment.

As the restaurant lost business, it was forced to lay off a number of employees, many of them gay.

We need make clear that all gay people do not completely politicize their lives as have these angry activists.

Please e-mail me to let me know whether you prefer we do this for dinner on New Year’s Day or next Sunday, January 4.

Oh, and to encourage business, once we set the date, I’m buying margaritas for the first five people to show up!

Share

160 Comments

  1. Yet when do we make clear that not all persons of faith “completely politicize their lives as have these angry [religious right] activists”? I see no such call when it comes to the numerous boycotts coming from religious right groups like the AFA and TVC. Are you planning on calling a rally to bust boycotts from them as well, Dan? Given the thousands of miles I’d have to travel to make such a choice to boycott or not I guess this one is easy enough for me at least.

    Comment by John — December 29, 2008 @ 10:10 pm - December 29, 2008

  2. Good for you, Dan. I hope the evening is a great success.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 29, 2008 @ 11:29 pm - December 29, 2008

  3. Are you planning on calling a rally to bust boycotts from them as well, Dan?

    Eh. It’s more fun watching the pathetic, hypocritical gays blasting away at their own feet with a .50 cal. Then again, I might consider going back in the closet because I wouldn’t want to be associated with the type of a-holes who would.

    Can’t make it, Dan, but save a seat for me.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 30, 2008 @ 12:39 am - December 30, 2008

  4. John, I stood by Disney when the AFA tried to boycott that good company for its then-landmark domestic partnership program.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 30, 2008 @ 5:05 am - December 30, 2008

  5. TGC: *snicker* Okay, that visual is amusing if not sadly accurate in some ways…

    Dan: Ok, that’s one. Yet while some of the flack gay activists are taking for post-Prop 8 shenanigans may be deserved, I rarely hear criticism about the numerous and continual boycotts by religious right wackos for the most inane perceived slight. If I were going to join a boycott or to bust one in this case, I do believe I’d stand by the 18,000 couples forced to divorce by Prop 8. Whether they should have been allowed to legally marry or not prior to the referendum is immaterial to the fact that my sympathies are far more in their court than El Coyote’s.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2008 @ 7:15 am - December 30, 2008

  6. Yet while some of the flack gay activists are taking for post-Prop 8 shenanigans may be deserved, I rarely hear criticism about the numerous and continual boycotts by religious right wackos for the most inane perceived slight.

    Such as the current call to boycott Campbell’s, because they had a magazine ad in which a little girl is eating soup with, what is assumed to be, two female parents happily watching on. This boycott may “work,” because Campbell’s is also having some financial problems.

    Comment by Pat — December 30, 2008 @ 8:42 am - December 30, 2008

  7. I rarely hear criticism about the numerous and continual boycotts by religious right wackos for the most inane perceived slight.

    Don’t pay attention much, then, do you? Boycotts by the Southern Baptist Convention are regular jokes on The Daily Show, and frequently ridiculed by left wing blogs.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2008 @ 9:10 am - December 30, 2008

  8. I’d like to come, but LA is quite a drive from Pennsylvania.

    Comment by rightwingprof — December 30, 2008 @ 9:18 am - December 30, 2008

  9. #7 That’s true V, but on here? or by other conservatives? Not so much. It’s still more fun to giggle and trash the left than to actually take a stand against your allies. Well, not your allies V because the same folks consider the LDS a false religion, and not GPW because he said he stood by Disney, but others… it’s not who is correct that matters it’s who is Right.

    Comment by a different Dave — December 30, 2008 @ 9:37 am - December 30, 2008

  10. It’s not GP or GPW’s job to carry water for the left. There’s a million other blogs to do that.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2008 @ 9:53 am - December 30, 2008

  11. I’d stand by the 18,000 couples forced to divorce by Prop 8.

    These people are still considered married under CA law. This ruling is not retroactive, so although new couples cannot get married – nothing invalidates the marriages of those who got married between May 17 and Nov. 4th.

    Comment by Leah — December 30, 2008 @ 11:01 am - December 30, 2008

  12. #10 V, I didn’t say it was. But when one of the biggest whines from those who comment here is that us “liberals” won’t criticize the excesses of the gay communities and/or any single act of stupidity committed by a liberal – past, present or future, it only stands to reason that they (the conservatives) would be willing to criticize their own. Reality is, few are, and many (on here) deny that the right is guilty of anything wrong and that suggesting they do is religious bigotry. The H word strikes again.

    Comment by a different Dave — December 30, 2008 @ 11:15 am - December 30, 2008

  13. #11 Leah, aren’t the Prop 8 folks trying to get those marriages invalidated?

    Comment by a different Dave — December 30, 2008 @ 11:17 am - December 30, 2008

  14. RE: #11

    But now the sponsers of Prop 8 ARE trying to nullify the pre-Prop 8 marriages. So where does your argument go from here?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap

    Comment by sarah — December 30, 2008 @ 11:18 am - December 30, 2008

  15. It’s interesting to read these comments. I was recently kicked off of Independent Gay Forum for similar comments. I wonder if I can say these kinds of things here?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 30, 2008 @ 11:42 am - December 30, 2008

  16. A-D-D, you suffer from a chronic inability to back up your assertions of bigotry on the part of the C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n right and self-criticism on the left with concrete examples.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2008 @ 11:43 am - December 30, 2008

  17. adDave,

    There was an attempt to put the court’s decision on hold until 8 was resolved. The courts refused.

    As you’ve been so fond of saying. “As ye sow…”

    Comment by The Livewire — December 30, 2008 @ 11:56 am - December 30, 2008

  18. I boycott or support businesses/organizations for personal reasons and leave it at that. Organized boycotts no matter how righteous rarely work. Then again, perhaps if for example proven racist hiring policies were not illegal, boycotts would be more successful because such cases would be resolved in the courts of public opinion rather than in courts of law.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 30, 2008 @ 12:09 pm - December 30, 2008

  19. RE: #18

    Boycotts can be extremely effective. If they weren’t, they would never be tried. In the case of El Coyote, where the majority of the clientele is/was apparently gay, I think the boycott is both justified and probably will be effective. In that case, a large customer base is supporting the boycott for, as you say, personal reasons. So in the court of El Coyote’s public, it will probably be effective.

    Also, why would you bother boycotting a business if you thought it wouldn’t have any effect?

    Comment by sarah — December 30, 2008 @ 12:46 pm - December 30, 2008

  20. Ashpenaz, did they really kick you off? What happened?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 30, 2008 @ 1:05 pm - December 30, 2008

  21. I hope that Ashpenaz gets reinstated on IGF, if he hasn’t been already — true, a lot of his posts (not all of them) are repetitive flamebait, but he’s hardly the only one guilty of that on the IGF threads.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 30, 2008 @ 2:23 pm - December 30, 2008

  22. Sarah you link to the yahoo site didn’t work. Here’s the thing, the Yes on 8 people may have asked to retroactively annul the gay marriages. Court said – can’t do. The proposition is only effective from the day it was passed.

    So please, don’t make this into more a victimfest than it already is.

    As to El Coyote, not only is a lot of the clientele gay, many employees are as well – and guess what happened. Some of the the gay employees lost their jobs since the restaurant is suffering. Nice going, your boycott has hurt your own people.

    Second of all, why does one persons personal beliefs have to effect a whole entity?
    Majorie Christofferson has treated everyone in her establishment fairly – all her gay clientele will tell you so. As a free American, she can support whatever she wants in her personal life. She never announced to anyone that she is pro traditional marriage. When the info came out – she and her establishment were vilified. Some of her gay employees tried to offer up a much larger donation to NO on 8. That wasn’t good enough, the gay gestapo will not allow freedom of speech, association or belief.

    Great job Sarah, more gays – employees and clients are being hurt by this boycott.

    Comment by Leah — December 30, 2008 @ 2:28 pm - December 30, 2008

  23. Don’t pay attention much, then, do you? Boycotts by the Southern Baptist Convention are regular jokes on The Daily Show, and frequently ridiculed by left wing blogs.

    If you want to make this a left-right divide thing, okay then. Yet I was under the impression that GP was trying to rise above pettiness and hypocrisy while maintaining its conservative credibility. Was I wrong? Saying that the other side does it too is hardly an excuse, unless of course you want to admit that conservatives are many times no different and no better than the liberals they criticize (and vice versa).

    Comment by John — December 30, 2008 @ 3:05 pm - December 30, 2008

  24. Leah, that whole freedom of association thing works both ways. Margie offended her customers and then invited them to a meeting where she refused to apologize. Now her customers are free to no longer associate themselves with her business.

    You do realize El Coyote is located in the gayest part of Hollywood, don’t you? There are plenty of gay owned and gay friendly eateries in the neighborhood with managers that support their gay customers 100%. El Coyote’s loss will be some other gay business’s gain.

    Comment by donner — December 30, 2008 @ 3:09 pm - December 30, 2008

  25. Does anyone buy Campbell soup anymore? I get better tasting soup by running tap water through my beach sandals.

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — December 30, 2008 @ 3:19 pm - December 30, 2008

  26. It isn’t mandated by the First Amendment, but treating our opponents with civility and respect might enable us to live with one another when the battle is finally over. Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center

    Supporting El Coyote is an important cause. But the name calling and disrespectful / reactionary behavior is not very becoming.

    Comment by rusty — December 30, 2008 @ 3:25 pm - December 30, 2008

  27. 24, I do Julie, when it’s on sale. It’s no better or worse than Progresso. But I guess I shouldn’t now because of that ad. :-)

    Comment by Pat — December 30, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - December 30, 2008

  28. These people are still considered married under CA law. This ruling is not retroactive, so although new couples cannot get married – nothing invalidates the marriages of those who got married between May 17 and Nov. 4th.

    There are two things I find ironic about this:

    1. Given that the bald-faced liars in Yes on 8 have filed to have these 18,000 marriages taken away, contrary to what they said prior to the referendum, the decision on whether Prop 8 invalidates them or not is left up to the California Supremes.

    2. If the California Supremes rule that Prop 8 isn’t applied retroactively, while also upholding the amendment as valid, the 18,000 same-sex marriages already existing undercut the arguments of the religious right wackos.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2008 @ 4:36 pm - December 30, 2008

  29. Comment by Ashpenaz — December 30, 2008 @ 11:42 am – December 30, 2008

    What comments? Feel free to stake a position that is pro, anti, I-don’t-care, or whathaveyou. I’m surprised IGF would boot someone for taking an unpopular position.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2008 @ 4:42 pm - December 30, 2008

  30. Here’s the thing, the Yes on 8 people may have asked to retroactively annul the gay marriages. Court said – can’t do. The proposition is only effective from the day it was passed.

    When did this happen? Did I miss some news during the holidays or lead-up to them?

    As to El Coyote, not only is a lot of the clientele gay, many employees are as well – and guess what happened. Some of the the gay employees lost their jobs since the restaurant is suffering. Nice going, your boycott has hurt your own people.

    Cool, I get to quote John Corvino whom I agree with about this:

    I think punishing El Coyote for the contributions of a single employee—one whose views on this subject hardly seem representative of its management or staff—is certainly overbroad and probably counterproductive.

    And yet I also appreciate the outrage of those who want nothing to do with anyone and anything even remotely associated with “Yes on 8”—a campaign which not only took away marriage rights, but did so by despicably portraying gays as a threat to children.

    Against that ugly backdrop, it’s hard to get worked up about a diner’s business slowing down.

    As a free American, she can support whatever she wants in her personal life. She never announced to anyone that she is pro traditional marriage. When the info came out – she and her establishment were vilified. Some of her gay employees tried to offer up a much larger donation to NO on 8. That wasn’t good enough, the gay gestapo will not allow freedom of speech, association or belief.

    The contribution was after-the-fact and didn’t mitigate the betrayal some gay clients obviously felt. As for the rest, Corvino is again right when he writes:

    But nobody “silenced” Margie Christoffersen. She expressed her viewpoint by contributing; others expressed theirs by boycotting. That’s how free expression works.

    So call the boycott counterproductive if you like, or reckless, or even mean-spirited. I might quibble with some of your characterizations, but I see your point.

    But please don’t call it a violation of anyone’s rights. Neither Christoffersen nor El Coyote has a pre-existing right to anyone’s patronage.

    Don’t call it a violation of her religious freedom, unless religious freedom means the freedom to strip away others’ legal rights without their being free to walk away from you.

    And for heaven’s sake, don’t call it a violation of her freedom of conscience.

    Christoffersen is free to think, speak, or vote however she likes. Others are free to avoid her.

    In the culture war, as elsewhere, freedom is a sword that cuts both ways.

    Comment by John — December 30, 2008 @ 4:51 pm - December 30, 2008

  31. Leah, your comment that the court said “No can do” to the nullification of existing marriages does not inspire any sense of relief or safety regarding those marriages —since the same court had previously held that by constitutional law, same sex marriages must be legal and valid. Guess what happened to that ruling?

    And about your comment on the establishment being vilified for the actions of one person — in her role as hostess, that person served as the face of the establishment. Every person walking through the door was greeted by her, and supposedly made to feel like “family”. There are plenty of people who choose to cut ties to “family” that they know consider them second class citizens. The clientele who chose to stop patronizing El Coyote did the same thing. They have the right to do that just as much as the hostess had the right to use the money they had spent at her restaurant to support taking away their rights.

    Comment by sarah — December 30, 2008 @ 5:52 pm - December 30, 2008

  32. “That wasn’t good enough, the gay gestapo will not allow freedom of speech, association or belief.”

    Would you call the organization that Marjorie belonged to the “Mormon Gestapo”, since they won’t allow the freedom of a certain segmant of American citizens to marry who they wish? The customers who chose to boycott El Coyote are not stopping a single person from exercising their freedom of speech, association or belief. Marjorie is still free to go to her temple, say whatever she wants to say, believe what she wants to believe. And the customers have the freedom to take their business elsewhere.

    “Great job Sarah, more gays – employees and clients are being hurt by this boycott.”

    That’s unfortunate. But I think taking a stand against the legalized discrimination towards thousands of people (and if you think nation or world – wide, millions) is perhaps a legitimate action to take despite a handful of people losing their jobs temporarily.

    Comment by sarah — December 30, 2008 @ 6:02 pm - December 30, 2008

  33. Where did my original scolding of Average Gay Joe go? Something really needs to be done about this site’s damn spam filter!

    John, you actually have more sympathy for the overreaction to a private political donation than for a business being harmed by what one employee did as a private citizen? Are you nuts?

    Prior to the Prop 8 brouhaha I’d never heard of a business being boycotted because of what an employee in his private life. And the poor woman resigned! Yet the restaurant is still hurting.

    I do believe I’d stand by the 18,000 couples forced to divorce by Prop 8.

    Is that what this is about? No couple is being forced to divorce. California recognizes same-sex couples under its domestic partnership laws. The fact that their relationships can no longer be consider marriages does not prevent the state from recognizing them.

    All this business about the silly boycotts called by the likes of AFA and TVC whenever a company offends their sensibilities is pointless. When do they ever work?

    Dan is responding to the El Coyote situation as a gay man who dislikes the tactics of the perpetually outraged gay left. As a Jew he doesn’t have to feel a similar obligation to counter the boycotts of cranky right-wing Christians.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 30, 2008 @ 6:27 pm - December 30, 2008

  34. Am I allowed to say anything here anymore?

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — December 30, 2008 @ 6:27 pm - December 30, 2008

  35. “Great job Sarah, more gays – employees and clients are being hurt by this boycott.”

    That’s unfortunate.

    How Marie Antoinette of you. “Gee, it’s too bad real people are suffering real pain because of my need for smug self-satisfaction. Fortunately, my feelings are far more important than some silly working-class person’s job.”

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2008 @ 7:24 pm - December 30, 2008

  36. CLDave – If you’re referring to the spamfilter, it bites all of us – just shoot GPW a quick email when it bites you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 30, 2008 @ 7:28 pm - December 30, 2008

  37. I wonder if Marjorie considered the real pain her customers and employees would feel due to her need for smug and self rightious self-satisfaction.

    Comment by sarah — December 30, 2008 @ 9:21 pm - December 30, 2008

  38. Fortunately, her feelings and religion were more important than some silly gay’s relationship and commitment to another human being.

    Comment by sarah — December 30, 2008 @ 9:23 pm - December 30, 2008

  39. LOL….you amuse us, sarah, especially since gay liberals and their organizations donated in support of marriage bans.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2008 @ 9:29 pm - December 30, 2008

  40. Wonder if sarah can explain why, if gays and liberals are so concerned about causing gay people pain and suffering, why they endorse and support marriage ban supporters as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2008 @ 9:30 pm - December 30, 2008

  41. I wonder if Marjorie considered the real pain her customers and employees would feel due to her need for smug and self rightious self-satisfaction.

    I guess she didn’t consider her customers were a bunch of smug, selfish a-holes who couldn’t tolerate the idea that other people had different points of view.

    some silly gay’s relationship and commitment to another human being.

    And, of course, teh gheys are completely incapable of having loving and committed relationships without official recognition from a government bureaucracy.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2008 @ 9:44 pm - December 30, 2008

  42. As a gay marriage supporter, I hate it when my side sounds as completely stupid as ‘sarah’ does.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 30, 2008 @ 9:57 pm - December 30, 2008

  43. To elaborate: I wonder if ‘sarah’ considered that it was a *vote* where each person gets to decide her own mind, even if ‘sarah’ won’t like it. I wonder if, or why, ‘sarah’ is blind to her own insensitive smugness and self-righteousness in imputing bad motives to people who disagree with her on gay marriage.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 30, 2008 @ 10:04 pm - December 30, 2008

  44. It is one thing to have a “vote” where each person gets to decide her own mind. It is another thing to have a “vote” where the majority gets to take away the civil rights of the minority. That happens to be unconstitutional. Calling me insensitive, smug and self righteous for defending the civil rights of all people is kind of meaningless, since I can just as easily call you, or Marjorie, or anyone else by the same epithets. Before I imputed Marjorie’s bad motives, someone assigned me the very same motives —- I turned it around to Marjorie simply to make a point. I don’t know what Marjorie’s motives were, other than believing she contributed to the Prop 8 campaign because she didn’t believe people who were different than her should have the same rights she did when it came to marriage. People can have any opinion they want on gay marriage. But that doesn’t give them the right to take away the rights of others.

    Comment by sarah — December 30, 2008 @ 10:16 pm - December 30, 2008

  45. #42 as a carbon based biped, I hate it when humans sound like sarah does.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2008 @ 10:27 pm - December 30, 2008

  46. It is another thing to have a “vote” where the majority gets to take away the civil rights of the minority.

    Well, since you believe that marriage is a “civil right” that can never be denied to anyone by any means, we can add you to the list of people who are demanding the removal of bans against parent-child, sibling, underage, and plural marriages as a violation of those relationships’ “civil rights”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2008 @ 10:29 pm - December 30, 2008

  47. And notice how sarah can’t explain why, if she and her fellow liberal gays are against making donations to support marriage bans, why they aren’t screaming at HRC and other gay organizations and their leadership who do exactly that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2008 @ 10:31 pm - December 30, 2008

  48. Calling me insensitive, smug and self righteous for defending the civil rights of all people is kind of meaningless

    Princess, you’re not defending anybody’s rights by boycotting a restaurant and putting gay people out of work. You’re throwing a tantrum, and engaging in a form of political bullying.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2008 @ 10:36 pm - December 30, 2008

  49. 44, So you agree then that plural marriage should be allowed sarah? Or that clubs should be allowed to keep women out since forcing them to be allowed in would violate freedom of association?

    Or perhaps you feel that women should be drafted, after all we shouldn’t discriminate against women being drafted.

    Or I know, lets give Fred Phelps front row seating at every gay wedding, wouldn’t want to keep a fine upstanding member of the Democratic Party from attending such an event, and hey, let him bring lots of his friends.

    You want to change the definition of marrige, so why stop?

    Government recognization of marriage is a privlege. Period, the end. The current President, and the incoming both oppose recognition of that.

    Sorry, you’re not Adam Savage. You can’t reject reality and substitute your own.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 30, 2008 @ 10:39 pm - December 30, 2008

  50. Sorry, you’re not Adam Savage. You can’t reject reality and substitute your own.

    Props on the Mythbusters ref.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2008 @ 10:55 pm - December 30, 2008

  51. Wow, so many attacks against me, where to start?

    As far as plural marriage — well, if people want to defend “traditional marriage” for religious reasons, biblically speaking plural marriage was traditional. I honestly don’t care one way or another if people engage in plural marriages, as long as all parties are consenting adults. Regarding parent-adult child or siblings marrying each other, again, as long as they are consenting adults, I’m not sure I have any right to stop them, even if I don’t agree with it. As far as underage marriages, minors cannot legally be a party in a contract, so I think that would include marriage (although “traditionally” marriage certainly did involve minors).

    As far as the question about why I don’t scream at democrats who oppose marriage equality — how do you know I don’t? I do, and so do a lot of other liberal democrats. BTW, Obama and Clinton both opposed Prop 8.

    As far as 49′s questions, half of them don’t make sense to me. What do you mean about “clubs”? And yes, I believe that if there is a draft, that women should be drafted. Your Fred Phelps question in unintelligible — while marriage is a public contract, weddings are private affairs, and I support anyone getting married to invite or not anyone they choose.

    Government recognition of marriage is not “privlege”. In California, the Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples are entitled to equal protection under the law, and that bans on same sex marriage violate that equal protection.

    Comment by sarah — December 30, 2008 @ 11:01 pm - December 30, 2008

  52. Keep at it, Sarah. You’re not alone in either your convictions or your liberal presence on this blog.

    BTW, what fussing this blog’s conservatives are making over a simple boycott. From folks who are seeming proponents of a free market, no less.

    Well, the market is indeed free and it has spoken. At most recent reporting, El Coyote’s revenues were down by 30 percent (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123033766467736451.html?mod=googlenews_wsj).

    Comment by JR — December 30, 2008 @ 11:48 pm - December 30, 2008

  53. As far as plural marriage — well, if people want to defend “traditional marriage” for religious reasons, biblically speaking plural marriage was traditional.

    Poor sarah; if you could think for yourself instead of repeating leftist talking points and had actually read the Bible, you might know that 1 Timothy 3, 1 Timothy 5, and Titus 1 make it clear that the expectation is that church leaders and those who follow them must only have one wife. But why read, when you can just make bigoted and prejudicial statements and demonstrate how foolish you are instead?

    Meanwhile, sarah, since you claim that you don’t oppose polygamy and incestuous marriages, why aren’t you and your fellows protesting the imprisonment of people like Warren Jeffs? When do you intend to speak out against that?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2008 @ 11:50 pm - December 30, 2008

  54. As far as the question about why I don’t scream at democrats who oppose marriage equality — how do you know I don’t? I do, and so do a lot of other liberal democrats.

    Answer: because you won’t ever demonstrate it. State that all Democrats who don’t endorse immediate gay marriage or who oppose it for religious reasons, including Barack Obama, are bigots and homophobes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2008 @ 11:51 pm - December 30, 2008

  55. I’d love to make the eat-in but Thursday and Sunday are both “school nights” for me and SoCalPartner. He’s eaten there and says it’s pretty good (that’s been some time back). Good luck. I hope a good time is had be all.

    Whether or not we agree with the anti-gay (pro-traditional?) marriage folks, we should respect their right to advocate their position without fear of intimidation. A society where people are afraid to voice their opinions is doomed (see Europe). And we should remember that intimidation is a two-way street.

    Sarah: BHO and HRC may have opposed Prop 8 but they’ve also stated that they believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. Can’t have it both ways.

    I also think marriage is a privileged arrangement (not a right) recognized by the state for specific reasons. To just throw marriage to the wind and let anyone make of it what he/she/it/they wish is a recipe for disaster. Our job is to convince our fellow citizens that society benefits from providing the marriage framework to gay citizens.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 30, 2008 @ 11:53 pm - December 30, 2008

  56. Oh, and interestingly enough, JR’s link points out the hypocrisy of himself and his fellow gay liberals like Sarah.

    In compiling blacklists, activists say they have tried to make sure a business really belongs on one. They decided not to target a law firm in Los Angeles after learning that only one of the partners had donated to Yes on 8 and that the firm employed many gay attorneys, says David Stern, publisher of Frontiers Magazine, a gay publication in Los Angeles.

    But the fact that many of the El Coyote’s 89 employees are gay didn’t spare that establishment. The cafe also has long served as a gay hangout, which is why boycott organizers say they chose to target it after they discovered Ms. Christoffersen’s donation.”It just hit too close to home,” Mr. Gerami says.

    Add to that the fact that gay liberals like Sarah and JR aren’t protesting black-owned or Muslim-owned businesses and churches, only those owned or operated by white people, and you see very quickly what we already talked about above; gay liberals fully endorse and support marriage bans when it involves the “right” people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2008 @ 11:55 pm - December 30, 2008

  57. It is another thing to have a “vote” where the majority gets to take away the civil rights of the minority.

    And that, we did NOT have. Since a State marriage license is not a civil right… not for gays, not for straights, not for anybody. It is a legislated privilege. Currently a privilege for straights; and hopefully to become one for gays too – IF we can manage to argue our case with intelligence and maturity, something that sadly did not happen in California in 2008.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 30, 2008 @ 11:55 pm - December 30, 2008

  58. On the definite side, though, wish I could be there, GPW, and I’m sure ILC does too. :) Pity we NorCal folks can’t make it down.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2008 @ 11:59 pm - December 30, 2008

  59. Princess, you’re not defending anybody’s rights by boycotting a restaurant and putting gay people out of work. You’re throwing a tantrum, and engaging in a form of political bullying.

    ‘Zakly. Again, speaking as a gay marriage supporter, this ridiculous boycott over a private, $100 donation makes me feel ashamed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 12:00 am - December 31, 2008

  60. NDT, we could carpool :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 12:00 am - December 31, 2008

  61. No hypocrisy here, ND30. Unlike some conservatives, I am comfortable reading and distributing news links whose content may, in fact, differ from my own opinions.

    FYI: I read the full article before including the hyperlink in the post above. The article was the most recent I found RE El Coyote, so in my comment it went.

    Comment by JR — December 31, 2008 @ 12:09 am - December 31, 2008

  62. One more thing – since, if sarah chooses to respond to my comment, the inevitable next move will be to bring up Loving – and since I don’t even want to bother with this thread – let me say pre-emptively that Loving, despite its ringing language, did not find that marriage is a civil right that must be granted to all conceivable people or couples. Loving found, in the end, merely that race could not be used to disqualify couples from marriage. It still let the State discriminate among couples on the basis of such factors as the couple’s age, mental capacity, pre-existing family relations – and gender.

    In other words: Yes, the State gets to impose qualifications for a marriage license, discriminating among couples. Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. We should have gay marriage because it’s the right public policy – the best thing for society. Not because it, or any other kind of marriage for any other kind of couple, is somehow “a right”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 12:09 am - December 31, 2008

  63. I remember going to Charleston SC during the NAACP et.al boycott of the state over the Confederate Naval Jack (battle flags are square). There was a news item detailing how black businesses in the state were hurting the most.

    Same song, different verse.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 31, 2008 @ 2:04 am - December 31, 2008

  64. if sarah chooses to respond to my comment

    I reckon Marie’s busy baking some cakes.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 31, 2008 @ 2:05 am - December 31, 2008

  65. Oops! Forgot one:

    it only stands to reason that they (the conservatives) would be willing to criticize their own. Reality is, few are, and many (on here) deny that the right is guilty of anything wrong and that suggesting they do is religious bigotry. The H word strikes again.

    Time for you to start reading the GP blog backwards, lest you look like an idiot.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 31, 2008 @ 2:06 am - December 31, 2008

  66. sarah sarah sarah,

    same old tired arguements, new face.

    Funny how you ran to the bible to attack my arguements, since I make a point of avoiding scripture in mine, strike one.

    I mean ‘clubs’ Or why can’t a man compete in the LPGA? Why can’t a man live in my mom’s gated community? Answer, freedom of association. Why can the Boy Scouts exclude openly gay scoutmasters, ditto.

    I’ll give props for at least being morally consistant on the polygamy/incest/NAMBLA front, that is a new twist.

    And in California the constitution now says, the court was wrong. If you’re going to rely on Judicial Supremacy, well, kiss democracy good bye.

    Comment by The Livewire — December 31, 2008 @ 6:51 am - December 31, 2008

  67. Forgot to add, isn’t it amazing, before we wandered off topic, the outrage that people would break ranks on a boycot? I mean wow, heaven forbid we be individuals, the smallest minority.

    Comment by The Livewire — December 31, 2008 @ 6:53 am - December 31, 2008

  68. What comments? Feel free to stake a position that is pro, anti, I-don’t-care, or whathaveyou. I’m surprised IGF would boot someone for taking an unpopular position.

    John, while I agree with Throbert that Ashpenaz shouldn’t have been booted off of IGF, I doubt it was because he was taking an unpopular position. It was more the way he presented the position. It’s hard to explain. You really have to see it for yourself.

    Comment by Pat — December 31, 2008 @ 7:23 am - December 31, 2008

  69. I see that this thread has degenerated into the same ol’ argument. Yet this is one I haven’t heard for awhile:

    Poor sarah; if you could think for yourself instead of repeating leftist talking points and had actually read the Bible, you might know that 1 Timothy 3, 1 Timothy 5, and Titus 1 make it clear that the expectation is that church leaders and those who follow them must only have one wife. But why read, when you can just make bigoted and prejudicial statements and demonstrate how foolish you are instead?

    Why do you assume Sarah isn’t thinking for herself when her statement that “biblically speaking plural marriage was traditional” is correct? It is mainly through tradition or Tradition (as Catholics & Orthodox understand this) that polygamy is seen as being no longer permissable. In fact, this is an argument used by Catholic apologists at least against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura and in defense of Apostolic Tradition. Guess what? This argument is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching too. Here’s an example from popular Catholic lay apologist Mark Shea:

    But, with one minor exception, nowhere is a man forbidden to take more than one wife at a time. That exception is Paul’s command to overseers (and only overseers) to be the husband of “but one wife” (1 Tm 3:2; Ti 1:6). Yet the very fact Paul gives this command only to overseers suggests (if we have no tradition outside Scripture) that other Christian men could have more than one if they liked. After all, if monogamy were as crucial as we believe it to be and if Paul were preaching in a culture which still embraced polygamy, one would expect it to be a fairly constant theme in his moral teaching. Yet in all his other discussions of “practical Christian living” in every book from Romans to 2 Thessalonians, Paul never mentions a demand for monogamy on the part of the rank and file believer, even in strongly polygamous pagan cultures like Corinth. On the contrary, only in his instructions to overseers whose special responsibilities demand simplicity of life, does Paul mention this demand for monogamy.

    Need I mention that both the Catholic & Orthodox Churches also believe they also have the power to prohibit bishops from even having one wife?

    Comment by John — December 31, 2008 @ 8:35 am - December 31, 2008

  70. BTW, what fussing this blog’s conservatives are making over a simple boycott. From folks who are seeming proponents of a free market, no less.

    Because we have concerned over innocent working class people losing their jobs because of gay-left tantrum throwing. And we believe in defending freedom of speech and not punishing those who exercise it.

    It is sad, and somewhat frightening, that concern for the working class and the right of free speech are not values the ghey left cares about.

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2008 @ 9:00 am - December 31, 2008

  71. No, I wasn’t baking cakes, I was off protesting in front of black and Muslim churches. OK, not really.

    Look, if you all want to organize and go to El Coyote and spend a bunch of money (and maybe 5 of you will get a free marg), more power to you. Nobody is stopping you. I don’t think anyone is throwing a hissy fit about you “breaking ranks”. Neither myself nor any of the former customers are stopping anyone from thinking, saying or doing anything they wish, unlike the pro-Prop 8 folks. I actually do feel for those employees who might lose their jobs because of the loss of business, and I sincerely hope the increase in business in other restaurants nearby will help them to get new jobs.

    BTW, I’m not a gay liberal. I’m a married heterosexual liberal who happens to support people being able to decide who they marry and how they spend their money. Marjorie was free to spend her money supporting Prop 8, and her customers are free to spend their money somewhere else.

    Oh, and for ILOVE CAPITALISM — I’m not sure why my response to you would be so important, since apparently we agree that gay marriage should be legal, whatever route you come to that position. You predicted I would next bring up the Loving case, just as I predicted (though not in writing) inevitably someone would bring up incest or polygamy (though they left out people marrying their pets). Like you said, the point is, it is the right thing to do to validate same sex marriages, and all the contortions we are doing to try to justify it maybe just blur the issue that it is the right thing to do.

    GPW, I hope you let everyone know how many people show up on 1/1 or 1/4, and if you end up buying anyone a marg.

    Comment by sarah — December 31, 2008 @ 9:40 am - December 31, 2008

  72. BTW, what fussing this blog’s conservatives are making over a simple stunningly clueless, heartless, and ultimately counterproductive (against gays), boycott

    Fixed it for ya.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 10:38 am - December 31, 2008

  73. Wish I could go! Would love to support the restaurant.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 31, 2008 @ 10:41 am - December 31, 2008

  74. I’m a married heterosexual liberal who happens to support people being able to decide who they marry and how they spend their money

    Unless they spend their money supporting a political position you don’t share. In which case you want them punished. Because you’re so tolerant you don’t think anyone should be allowed to express an opinion that you think is intolerant. Do I have that right, sarah antoinette?

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2008 @ 10:59 am - December 31, 2008

  75. John Corvino writes a two-sided piece:

    http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31677.html

    He wants to emphasize that the Right is still bad, because the boycotters have a right to boycott, however “misdirected” (his word) and possibly even “mean-spirited” (again his) their boycott may be. I agree with him. But it doesn’t alter the starting point, that their efforts are, in fact, misdirected and mean-spirited. Corvino lets slip a number of details showing just how misdirected and mean-spirited the El Coyote boycott is. One example:

    in the wake of the controversy over Christoffersen, El Coyote has given $10,000 to the efforts to repeal Prop. 8—a substantial public penance for their employee’s private $100 “sin.”

    100 times more. I have to ask: How completely STUPID are these boycotters? They should be singing the praises of El Coyote for its support of ‘the community’. Literally!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 10:59 am - December 31, 2008

  76. “Unless they spend their money supporting a political position you don’t share. In which case you want them punished. Because you’re so tolerant you don’t think anyone should be allowed to express an opinion that you think is intolerant. Do I have that right, sarah antoinette?”

    No, you don’t. I am fine with people expressing opinions I consider intolerant. However, I may chose not to associate with those people, or spend my money in their establishment. If that is considered “punishment” by you, so be it. I’m not stopping anyone else from spending money there because they agree with the intolerant opinion expressed, or because they happen to like the fajitas.

    BTW I don’t know if you noticed, but at no time have I attacked another person with a different belief on this thread. Including Marjorie or El Coyote. I have consistently held to the belief that people should have the freedom to think, say or do what they wish, as long as it doesn’t take away the freedom of another. So go ahead and call me names as a way of trying to prove you are better than me. You have that right.

    Comment by sarah — December 31, 2008 @ 11:25 am - December 31, 2008

  77. I think taking a stand against the legalized discrimination towards thousands of people (and if you think nation or world – wide, millions) is perhaps a legitimate action to take despite a handful of people losing their jobs temporarily. – sarah antoinette helmsley announcing that she thinks the little people deserve to lose their job for offending her politically correct sensibilities.

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2008 @ 11:57 am - December 31, 2008

  78. Sarah, it’s one thing for you as an individual to spend as you see fit. Why doesn’t the same go for Marjorie. She has been kind, fair and generous to her customers – gay or straight.
    In her private life she has beliefs she has never shared with any of her customers. So she donates based on her beliefs. Because of our laws, her donation isn’t really a private matter – along comes the gay Gestapo and has a hissy fit, ruins her life and the life of others in her establishment.

    And to you that is ok, tolerant, liberal and open minded.
    As I Jew I am always told actions are what matters – in every public action Marjorie had towards her clientele she was kind, gracious and accepting. But Sarah and the Gay Gestapo won’t hear of it – she must be punished since she won’t walk in lockstep with Sarah’s beliefs.

    I would hate to live in a society where every minority whim is the rule of the land. We all have freedoms and desires curtailed. In CA more than most other State Gays were getting closer to having their civil unions actually recognized as marriage. Well that will change, I can tell you from exprience that because of the ugly reaction of these gays – many people who voted no on 8 – will vote against Gay marriage next time around.

    Someone here mentioned the lawfirm that didn’t get boycotted. What was the difference, as a lawfirm they have more power than Marjorie to fight back?

    Sarah, in my book, people who claim they are liberals like you these days are fascists. Your open mindness is only if people agree with you. I find Marjorie much more open minded than you. She treated eveyone fairly, if it weren’t for our laws you and no one else would ever know how she feels about marriage. But with you, you are out in the open proclaiming to the rest of us that you are good and pure – while we who happen to disagree with you are evil.

    Comment by Leah — December 31, 2008 @ 12:02 pm - December 31, 2008

  79. Someone here mentioned the lawfirm that didn’t get boycotted. What was the difference, as a lawfirm they have more power than Marjorie to fight back?

    That’s exactly it, Leah. Sarah and her bullying ilk went after a weak target for their hatred and namecalling. She and her fellow liberal fascists were standing out front screaming for Marjorie to be fired:

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

    and verbally abusing and threatening patrons.

    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!”

    Incidentally, that article shows the duplicity and hatred of bigots like sarah, who were sitting there trying to say how “sorry” they felt even as they were encouraging and supporting a crowd screaming epithets and trying to block entrances to the restaurant.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2008 @ 12:28 pm - December 31, 2008

  80. Someone here mentioned the lawfirm that didn’t get boycotted. What was the difference, as a lawfirm they have more power than Marjorie to fight back?

    That’s exactly it, Leah. Sarah and her bullying ilk went after a weak target for their hatred and namecalling. She and her fellow liberal fascists were standing out front screaming for Marjorie to be fired:

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

    and verbally abusing and threatening patrons.

    But the anger was apparent as the few customers of the evening walked in, including a l-e-s-b-i-a-n couple. They were met with angry chanting of “Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you!”

    Incidentally, that article shows the duplicity and hatred of bigots like sarah, who were sitting there trying to say how “sorry” they felt even as they were encouraging and supporting a crowd screaming epithets and trying to block entrances to the restaurant.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2008 @ 12:28 pm - December 31, 2008

  81. “Yet I was under the impression that GP was trying to rise above pettiness and hypocrisy while maintaining its conservative credibility. Was I wrong?”

    Clearly

    Comment by a different Dave — December 31, 2008 @ 12:33 pm - December 31, 2008

  82. Leah, I never proclaimed myself good and pure, nor anyone who disagreed with me evil. I haven’t called anyone fascist, close minded. I don’t know what kind of a person you are, nor do I know what kind of a person Marjorie is, or how she treats other people. What I do know, and what her customers know, is that she financially supported a measure designed to take away the rights of her customers. She had every right to do that, and I would never want to see anything happen in this country that would take away that right. At the same time, her customers found out that underneath her warm smile and greeting at the door of her family’s establishment was a belief that they were not in fact equal to her, that a right or freedom or privilege she had was one she didn’t think they should have. As a result, their feelings about her changed, and they decided they didn’t want to spend their money in her family’s establishment. I don’t find that to be hateful, evil or fascistic. I find it to be pretty human and understandable.

    I think that probably if some of the clients of that lawfirm felt that the firm supported Prop 8, they may have taken their business elsewhere, too.

    As far as my compassion for those who may lose their jobs as a result of this —- I actually have quite a bit. I hope that the community can come together to make sure that those employees who lose their jobs because of El Coyote’s loss of business find jobs at other businesses in the community. As a person who has worked in a restaurant and other working class jobs, and has also belonged to and been active in unions, I totally support them and hope the community takes care of them.

    Comment by sarah — December 31, 2008 @ 12:41 pm - December 31, 2008

  83. Filter, GPW.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - December 31, 2008

  84. “That’s exactly it, Leah. Sarah and her bullying ilk went after a weak target for their hatred and namecalling. She and her fellow liberal fascists were standing out front screaming for Marjorie to be fired:

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

    and verbally abusing and threatening patrons.”

    Um, no, I never did that. Nor would I support it or encourage it. I try not to scream epithets at other people. I’ve had a whole lot of epithets used against me on this thread, and I haven’t used a single one against any other person, whether on this thread or off of it. I’m not supporting anyone abusing another person — I’m supporting people deciding where they want to spend their own money. Many times I’ve said I support Marjorie’s right to spend her money as she sees fit — I just also support the right of her customers to take their business elsewhere.

    Comment by sarah — December 31, 2008 @ 12:48 pm - December 31, 2008

  85. LOL…notice how sarah tries to dodge and spin away from the fact that there is proof that she and her fellow liberals were outside blockading the restaurant, screaming epithets, and verbally harassing people in an attempt to drive business away.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2008 @ 12:49 pm - December 31, 2008

  86. She’s also playing the victim card: “People are bullying me for expressing my opinion that people who express an opinion that’s different than mine deserve to be bullied.”

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2008 @ 12:55 pm - December 31, 2008

  87. Meanwhile, sarah, if you oppose this sort of behavior, why aren’t you out in front of the restaurant getting rid of the protesters, shaming them for their behavior, and telling them to go away? If you and your fellow liberals are against epithet-throwing and namecalling, why are liberals out in front of the restaurant doing it?

    Answer: Because you don’t oppose it. You’re merely trying to pretend you do for PR purposes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2008 @ 12:58 pm - December 31, 2008

  88. I’m not trying to spin away from that fact. I don’t know if it is true or not, and if it is true, I think it sucks. I happen to live in San Diego, and have never been to El Coyote, so no, I wasn’t sitting outside of it yelling epithets. I wouldn’t do that to any business, regardless of who owned it or what they sold.

    It seems now that the level of argument as sunk to people dreaming up who I am and what I have done, and deciding the invention of their imagination is fact.

    Here are the facts about what I believe:

    People have a right to donate to the campaigns of their choice.
    People have a right to spend their money in the way they choose.
    People do not have a right to harass or abuse other people.
    People do not have a right to take away the rights or privileges they enjoy from other people.
    Sometimes innocent people are affected when people take action to advocate for their rights. I support finding any way possible to mitigate the affect on the innocent while respecting the rights of people to advocate for themselves. If the Montgomery Bus Boycott had been called off because some bus drivers would have found themselves out of a job, history may have turned out differently.

    Comment by sarah — December 31, 2008 @ 1:02 pm - December 31, 2008

  89. I don’t know if it is true or not

    The first defense of the liberal when confronted with facts: deny reality.

    People have a right to spend their money in the way they choose.
    People do not have a right to harass or abuse other people.

    Except, of course, when it comes to gays and liberals, who may harass and abuse employees and customers of El Coyote with utter impunity and without a word of condemnation of their behavior from sarah.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2008 @ 1:10 pm - December 31, 2008

  90. Uh, I think I did condemn that behavior. Did you miss the part where I said I think it sucks if that was happening (and I’ll take your word for it that it did)? Yes, I do include gays and liberals in the definition of “people” who don’t have a right to harass or abuse other people.

    Let me make it clear if I didn’t before: I don’t support or approve of people — liberal or gay — harassing and abusing either the employees of El Coyote or the customers. I don’t support or approve of anybody preventing another person from patronizing El Coyote.

    Was that clear enough for you?

    Comment by sarah — December 31, 2008 @ 1:30 pm - December 31, 2008

  91. people should have the freedom to think, say or do what they wish, as long as it doesn’t take away the freedom of another

    If interpreted in a direct way, that is a terrifyingly fascistic statement. I would have no problem with the following:

    people should have the freedom to do what they wish, as long as it doesn’t take away the freedom of another; and complete freedom to say or think what they wish

    That’s the basis of our civil society. Personal, physical actions that harm another are banned. But only actions. Not thoughts. Not speech. Not convictions, or positions, or votes. But the first phrasing proposes to also ban *thoughts or speech* that the speaker doesn’t like, which is part of what the Nazis were up to. I hope it was only imprecision, and not sarah’s intent.

    As for the following, I can’t make head nor tail of it:

    People do not have a right to take away the rights or privileges they enjoy from other people.

    I’ll just reiterate that privileges, by definition, are something that should be voted on, and can rightly be voted away. We had a little something called the American Revolution to establish that point. The next question is whether a State marriage license is a right or a legislated privilege, for anybody. See my views at #57 and #62.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 1:36 pm - December 31, 2008

  92. “Meanwhile, sarah, if you oppose this sort of behavior, why aren’t you out in front of the restaurant getting rid of the protesters, shaming them for their behavior, and telling them to go away?”

    If she tried to do that, she’d be wasting her time since there haven’t been any protesters outside El Coyote for over a month.

    Comment by donner — December 31, 2008 @ 1:36 pm - December 31, 2008

  93. In a letter from the Office of the First Presidency of the LDS in SLC, the Genreal Authorities, Area Seventies and the following in California: Stake and Mission Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents were ask to read in the June 29, 2008 sacrament meeting:
    http://www.bycommonconsent.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08028_00.pdf

    “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.”

    From http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=2871
    Ms. Christoffersen said she simply did what her church told her, “El Coyote is as diverse as its clientele is. Our customers are part of our family and I responded to the call of the Mormon Church to donate.”

    Marjorie Christoffersen was following the call of the Mormon Church.

    I am a recovering Catholic (I have forgiven the Church for its sins). But I still have very close ties to my Catholic Brethren. But as a Gay man, I too find myself in conflict with many of the things that come down from the Prada Pope.

    I think the focus should be on the decision of the Lead Folk in SLC to send out the letter, calling on people who have LGBT folk in their ‘family’ and having them to make such decisions.

    Comment by rusty — December 31, 2008 @ 1:41 pm - December 31, 2008

  94. People do not have a right to take away the rights or privileges they enjoy from other people.

    Therefore, by that logic, since unrelated male and female adults can marry, they have no right to deprive pedophiles, polygamists, incest practitioners, and children of marriage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2008 @ 2:02 pm - December 31, 2008

  95. Perhaps sarah antoinette should spare some her smug outrage for her fellow liberal Californicans who are upset about black people moving into their neighborhoods.

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2008 @ 2:26 pm - December 31, 2008

  96. NDT,

    I think the ire at sarah may be misdirected. Hold your fire before she deserves to be dumped into the same round file as adDave.

    Sarah,

    I forgot my manners and I appologize. Welcome to the comment section of GP. In reading your posts, you do seem to be the rarest of birds, a consistent liberal. I do not agree with all your positions, but I will applaud the consistancy that you demonstrate.

    You’ve not ‘earned’ being lumped in with adDave, torrentprime, or any of our other, shall we say, flexible morality liberals. You do seem to be consistent in promoting free expression and association, even to taking the unpopular position of saying ‘there may be something in the poly/incest’ side of things, rather than a) denouncing it like most all of our conservative posters do, or b) trying to pretend it’s not the rest of the camel trying to get into the tent. I will try to spare you my mocking and derision, but I am human and prone to failure.

    Now as to the entire boycot thing. As rusty linked above Ms. Christoffersen was following the beliefs of herself and her church. Many of the posters on the site believe that the boycott was ill aimed and ill mannered, as the establishment is a ‘soft target’ with lots of collateral damage. This belief is bolstered by the fact that harder targets have either been ignored, or specifically avoided.

    If I understand you, and please correct me if I’m wrong, you feel that the organized boycot is allowed and such actions should be encouraged. At the same time, while you do not agree with Dan’s ‘rally at the pub’ you do agree that he should be allowed to do so, and bring what support he can. If I’m correct, then this is common ground we can agree on. I did not mean to imply you specifically were ‘thowing a hissy fit’ at the idea of a gathering. If that’s what was inferred, I again can only appologize for the misunderstanding

    Where we diverge is that I feel the boycott is an attempt to pressure an employer to punish an employee for her private beliefs and actions, not something she did with company resources or on company time. This boycott also seems to be catching a lot of people in the crossfire who have the ‘sin’ of working there.

    Again, welcome to the site, and please take some time to get to know the more, enthusiastic, people from the left and the right here. I personally welcome the thought of a well spoken morally consistent liberal. Right now I just get to argue with my mom, who is as consistent as, well as I am skinny. :-)

    Comment by The Livewire — December 31, 2008 @ 2:33 pm - December 31, 2008

  97. the boycott is an attempt to pressure an employer to punish an employee for her private beliefs and actions, not something she did with company resources or on company time. This boycott also seems to be catching a lot of people in the crossfire

    Bingo. The boycott is mean-spirited, even fascistic. (Although, pace John Corvino, it is legal.) And it’s all the more stupid because… it already worked. Christofferson has in effect been terminated, and El Coyote *as a business* has given $10,000 to the pro-gay-marriage side.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 2:49 pm - December 31, 2008

  98. “You’ve not ‘earned’ being lumped in with adDave, torrentprime, or any of our other, shall we say, flexible morality liberals. ”

    Seems you’re the only one that things that. The rest of piranhas started shredding right away. I’d rather have “flexible” morality (which I don’t but I’ll feed your fantasy) than none which has been clearly demonstrated by the “conservatives” here. NDT wasted no time with his lies and the rest jumped right in to tell sarah what she thinks which as usual has nothing to do with what she wrote. Y’all have earned your place in the catagory of Free Republic – fanatic, amoral low-lives with nothing better to do than to sling s*it. Sarah, you will never get a rational argument from most of these folks. Believe me, as juvenile and disgusting as some have been on this thread if you stick around you’ll find they can actually go even further into the gutter. The question I walk away from here with is – will true conservatism survive this infection? It will only if it is prepared to take drastic measures and cut the rotting flesh out before it spreads.

    Comment by a different Dave — December 31, 2008 @ 3:23 pm - December 31, 2008

  99. Livewire, as to the rest of your remarks welcoming sarah: I’ll just make the observation that she flung epithets at someone who happened to see things differently from her – see #37; then played the victim when people noticed the hypocrisy and arrogance. At #44, she gave me a “devil did it first” type of justification. But I personally don’t accept that defense, even when it’s factually true (and I’m not sure it is).

    sarah, I join Livewire in admiring the consistency of your admitting this:

    I honestly don’t care one way or another if people engage in plural marriages, as long as all parties are consenting adults. Regarding parent-adult child or siblings marrying each other… I’m not sure I have any right to stop them

    Well, I am sure. You see, a State license for anything is a privilege, not a right. Which means we do indeed get to vote on it. And which brings me to this:

    we agree that gay marriage should be legal, whatever route you come to that position

    No. First, the argument that a State marriage license is simply false. I care about truth. Getting something under false pretenses is just wrong.

    Second, because “the moral is the practical” as Ayn Rand used to say, wrong actions inevitably have wrong consequences… and in this case, if we got gay marriage under the false doctrine that a State license for hunting, fishing, driving, business practice, marriage or anything is somehow a “right”, then as a practical consequence, we would be forced to grant such licenses to polygamous and incestuous couples. Which would be undesirable and wrong.

    Third, the fact that treating gay marriage as a “right” forces us to treat polygamous and incestuous marriages as a “right” is a very good reason for the People to, you know, pass constitutional amendments affirming their right to define marriage. And then we get measures that deny gay marriage. In case you haven’t noticed, I want gay marriage to pass.

    So, the route by which you come to the view “we should have gay marriage” matters a great deal. Your route:

    1) Is just plain false. (Factually and logically wrong.)
    2) And thus its use produces other wrong results… which
    3) Leads to the defeat of gay marriage.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 3:27 pm - December 31, 2008

  100. aargh, sorry – “First, the argument that a State marriage license *is a right* is simply false…”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 3:28 pm - December 31, 2008

  101. V – Wonderful side reference at #94. I loved the tart wrap-up: “So here you have people looking to escape the miserable conditions resulting from liberal social engineering and the first ones complaining are the liberals themselves.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - December 31, 2008

  102. One last thought: I’ve had this same debate with a close fellow-gay friend. He, too, insists that a State marriage license is somehow a civil right. And therefore, that:
    - anyone who sees it differently from him must be imputed with bad motives
    - it’s fine if we marry polygamous and/or incestuous couples; in fact, we should.

    It’s a cluster of ugly positions that go hand-in-hand. One inevitably leads to the others. The religious right knows it and exploits it – and, looking just at the logic, they are right to.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 3:47 pm - December 31, 2008

  103. Meanwhile, over at ChickenPatriotWest, they’re offering to buy an order of wings for the first five chickens that show up at KFC.

    Comment by Rusty Shackleford — December 31, 2008 @ 4:15 pm - December 31, 2008

  104. ILC, I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt. If she’s an agnostic or an athiest, she could very well see actions of faith being that of ‘self righteousness’

    After all, if you do not have a believe in a higher power to know what’s ‘right’ the only righteousness you have left is the self

    Comment by The Livewire — December 31, 2008 @ 5:41 pm - December 31, 2008

  105. …properly subject to the constraints of reason and objective reality. (Ahem)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 5:59 pm - December 31, 2008

  106. Meanwhile, Rusty, given that you and your fellow gay liberals fully support and endorse marriage bans and the politicians who support them, your words do nothing more than prove you a hypocrite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2008 @ 6:46 pm - December 31, 2008

  107. Let me make it clear if I didn’t before: I don’t support or approve of people — liberal or gay — harassing and abusing either the employees of El Coyote or the customers. I don’t support or approve of anybody preventing another person from patronizing El Coyote.

    Meaningless. Since you refuse to repudiate and condemn the gay people who did so and are doing so in the same way that you condemn Marjorie, it is obvious that yiou have no problem whatsoever with gay and liberal people harassing the employees of El Coyote or its customers.

    Put your money where your mouth is and condemn the gays and liberals who engaged in such behavior. You can do that, can’t you?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 31, 2008 @ 6:58 pm - December 31, 2008

  108. I’m not in SoCal, but there’s no way in hell will I support this or any businesses that employ bigots. I’m buying Campbell’s Soup by the truckload from now on. M’mm m’mm good!

    Comment by Attmay — December 31, 2008 @ 7:36 pm - December 31, 2008

  109. Attmay, did you see Corvino’s article about El Coyote? Hint: #75, take a look. You really need to. I’ll try to hold my laughter.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 9:02 pm - December 31, 2008

  110. (and I admit, I am trusting Corvino to have it right)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 9:05 pm - December 31, 2008

  111. but there’s no way in hell will I support this or any businesses that employ bigots.

    Good luck alone in your bunker since it’s highly unlikely you’ll find companies without bigots.
    Oh I just realized, you don’t mean any bigot – only those who disagree with you!

    Comment by Leah — December 31, 2008 @ 9:36 pm - December 31, 2008

  112. Leah, you just reminded me: Attmay will have to avoid supporting any businesses that employ himself ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 31, 2008 @ 9:57 pm - December 31, 2008

  113. People do not have a right to take away the rights or privileges they enjoy from other people.

    Pardon me Sarah, but didn’t you say, a few posts back, that you don’t know what Marjorie’s motivations were and that you don’t know what she was thinking? I don’t have the time or inclination to go back and find that comment, but I’m fairly certain that you did. Now, in later comments, you ASSume to know that she supports taking away “rights” from others. How does that work?

    As far as taking away priveleges from other people, therefore you must oppose our judicial system and even parents, right?

    The question I walk away from here with is – will true conservatism survive this infection?

    By “true conservatism”, you obviously mean the milque-toast types, like McCain, who will gladly bite on a pillow for liberals.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 1, 2009 @ 2:45 am - January 1, 2009

  114. I’ve tried posting a few times in response to the questions posed to me, and for some reason, it hasn’t taken. I’m not going to go back and answer the many questions posed to me, but I do want to say thank you to Livewire — for the most part, yes, I think you did understand my point pretty well, and I appreciate your graciousness.

    Also, to NDT — I am not playing the victim card. I voluntarily decided to post my opinions on a site where it was pretty clear I was a minority opinion, and I was not surprised nor hurt by the response to that. If you have decided I am a smug, self righteous princess based on what I’ve written, you can go ahead and say that.

    In response to #112 — no I can’t read Marjorie’s mind, but I think it is reasonable to assume that if someone donates to a proposition campaign, they support that campaign. Now, maybe Marjorie didn’t think she was taking anyone’s rights away. But I think that was why all these customers who she has known and who have known her all these years wanted to confront her about this. If you saw the video of the meeting held between the customers, management and Marjorie, a lot of the customers are trying to communicate to her how Prop 8 affected them, to try to get her to see how her donation was used to take away what they believed to be a right that they had, equal to the right she had. The link that NDT posted about the protest outside the restaurant was interesting. In addition to talking about the protesters who were being abusive (which I do condemn, absolutely and completely) there were also people expressing their concern for other employees, and also expressing their care for Marjorie.

    I know my comments in 37 and 38 sound snide and flippant, but if you look back, you’ll see I’m paraphrasing VtheK in #35. It was snide and flippant, and I don’t really believe that was how Marjorie felt, just like I didn’t feel the way VtheK said I did.

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 9:15 am - January 1, 2009

  115. “As far as taking away priveleges from other people, therefore you must oppose our judicial system and even parents, right?”

    Uh, no. I believe very strongly in our judicial system, though it is not perfect. I am ok with taking away certain rights and priveleges via the due process system.

    I also certainly support parent’s teaching their children through reasonable forms of discipline. However, I do believe that children have rights that are over what their parents might want for them, or do to them, and I am glad we have a judicial system that helps to figure out where these lines are drawn.

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 9:27 am - January 1, 2009

  116. 114. Ok Sarah, I have a question now based on this post.

    “Uh, no. I believe very strongly in our judicial system, though it is not perfect. I am ok with taking away certain rights and priveleges via the due process system.”

    So why the ire at Prop 8? Despite the AG not doing his job, and continuing to betray the people who elected him, Prop 8, along with the 29 other DOMA ammendments/legislation, is Due process.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 1, 2009 @ 11:09 am - January 1, 2009

  117. Why stop at marriage? Frankly, I don’t think gays should be allowed to drive, either. Since driving is just a privilege I think I’ll try to get my state to take it away from them.

    This could be fun! What other privileges can we think of?

    Comment by Rusty Shackleford — January 1, 2009 @ 11:24 am - January 1, 2009

  118. “So why the ire at Prop 8? Despite the AG not doing his job, and continuing to betray the people who elected him, Prop 8, along with the 29 other DOMA ammendments/legislation, is Due process.”

    No, it isn’t. A majority vote that takes away the rights of the minority is not due process.

    Due process is where (in extremely rough layman’s terms, since I’m not an attorney), someone has been accused, tried and convicted of committing a crime and based on punishment that has been decided upon and conforms to the requirements of the Bill of Rights, has certain rights, freedoms and privileges taken away.

    Rusty, how about the right to run a small business, say maybe, a hair salon, or a bar, or a construction company? How about taking away the privilege of practicing law, or medicine? Or operating a website?

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 11:55 am - January 1, 2009

  119. Since driving is just a privilege I think I’ll try to get my state to take it away from them.

    You are perfectly within your rights to do so. Go ahead and do it; I dare you.

    Meanwhile, “Rusty Shackleford”, why don’t you explain why, if you don’t like marriage bans, you and your fellow liberal gays support and endorse them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2009 @ 12:51 pm - January 1, 2009

  120. No, it isn’t. A majority vote that takes away the rights of the minority is not due process.

    Therefore, you oppose bans on pedophilia, prostitution, incestuous marriage, plural marriage, and others, because those are examples of laws passed by majority vote that take away a “right” of a sexual minority.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2009 @ 12:53 pm - January 1, 2009

  121. Ok sarah, i’m not following you. California has a process to ammend the constitution, as laid out by the constitution. That process was followed. If I understand your logic, (to take an enumerated right) the government has no right to keep me from owning a P-90 and can’t pass laws or ammendments to that effect.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 1, 2009 @ 1:05 pm - January 1, 2009

  122. my comments in 37 and 38 sound snide and flippant, but if you look back, you’ll see I’m paraphrasing VtheK in #35

    OK, that’s fair. I apologize for not having spotted / registered #35 on my own.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 1, 2009 @ 2:15 pm - January 1, 2009

  123. I’ve tried posting a few times in response to the questions posed to me, and for some reason, it hasn’t taken.

    The GP blog has a remarkably oppressive spamfilter. See my comment at #36.

    maybe Marjorie didn’t think she was taking anyone’s rights away

    And indeed, she wasn’t. The definition of a right is that it is something that you have morally, whether or not the People try to bless it or mess with it. A privilege, by contrast, is something that you do NOT morally have, until and unless (a) the People choose to legislate it that way, and (b) you meet the qualifications set by the People. A State license, for marriage or driving or anything else, is the latter…

    how her donation was used to take away what they believed to be a right that they had

    OMFG. Then these people need to *GET* *REAL*. Marjorie made a $100 donation, using her own money (not the business’), in a LEGITIMATE CAMPAIGN over a LEGITIMATE BALLOT PROPOSITION. Anyone who can’t understand that or accept that has some growing up to do.

    And even though the proposition passed, gay couples can STILL receive ALL the legal protections of marriage in California, if they want. The only difference now is that CA law calls it by a different name. The name issue is not unimportant; but not the end of the world, either. It needs to be fixed, and the way to fix it is for pro-gay forces to pass their own proposition, overturning Prop 8. That’s what this is really about. These whining gays don’t want to roll up their sleeves and do the work. They want a friendly dictator (the Courts) to overturn LEGITIMATE (if foolish) acts of democracy.

    Since driving is just a privilege I think I’ll try to get my state to take it away from them.

    Rusty, knock yourself out. You have my 100% blessing and support on that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 1, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - January 1, 2009

  124. “Ok sarah, i’m not following you. California has a process to ammend the constitution, as laid out by the constitution. That process was followed. If I understand your logic, (to take an enumerated right) the government has no right to keep me from owning a P-90 and can’t pass laws or ammendments to that effect.”

    I live in California, and I have to say, one of the most screwed up things about it, in addition to the proposition process, is that it only takes a majority vote to amend the state constitution. I am a much bigger fan of the U.S. Constitution, which requires a much more deliberate process to change. I don’t know what a P-90 is, but if it is a gun, I’m going to decline to be drawn into that debate. I’ve got my hands full enough with the marriage equality issue. Although I don’t think anyone has been killed as a direct result of a same sex marriage.

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 3:54 pm - January 1, 2009

  125. “Therefore, you oppose bans on pedophilia, prostitution, incestuous marriage, plural marriage, and others, because those are examples of laws passed by majority vote that take away a “right” of a sexual minority.”

    Well, first of all, I happen to not agree with the type of logic that says “if you believe x, you must also then believe y”. My world is not that black and white. I do support laws against pedophilia, because I don’t think children possess the emotional or intellectual capacity to be able to consent to sex with an adult, and my professional work has given me the experience of seeing the immense harm caused to children as the result of pedophilia. I do actually oppose bans on prostitution and plural marriage. I don’t support Jeffs because I think that community engages in coercive and abusive control of young women and girls.

    The incestuous marriage angle is an interesting one. There are some states that do allow marriage between cousins, and other states recognize those marriages as legal. Extending that to siblings and parents/adult children is an interesting legal and ethical discussion, but to me it is a different one than two non-related, consenting adults wanting to marry. Maybe you don’t think it is a different issue, but I do.

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 4:01 pm - January 1, 2009

  126. People like sarah and rusty who oppose the idea of establishing social mores through broad societal consensus say its unfair to lump pedophilia in with gay marriage. I ask, why not? There are people who say it is unfair to prevent children from expressing themselves sexually. The ACLU is a stalwart defender of NAMBLA. There are even a handful of “psychologists” who think that such relationships are harmless. There are also activist groups pushing for the normalization of a wide variety of other depraved sexual practices.

    What ties these issues to SSM, in my mind, is that they represent a choice in how society determines what form of sexual expression is acceptable. We either make these determinations by consensus, or we let some powerful governmental body decide for us. People like myself, NDT, and ILC want to have a voice in this decision making process. sarah and rusty want someone else to decide (so long as “someone else” consistently enforces their own choices and viewpoints).

    Comment by V the K — January 1, 2009 @ 4:03 pm - January 1, 2009

  127. I’m sorry, I still don’t follow. Are you saying that you believe the due process of ammending the constitution of CA is wrong? and thus Prop 8 doesn’t have protection of ‘due process’ in your eyes?

    I guess I just don’t understand. There are a lot of laws I disagree with here in Ohio (the smoking ban being one of them) but I respect that they were passed in the method established by the government of the state. I don’t attack their validity by applying a standard of ‘due process’ that doesn’t exist.

    And a P-90 is a very nice bull pup style automatic weapon. If you’ve ever watched any of the Staregate TV shows, it’s the gun they use.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 1, 2009 @ 4:04 pm - January 1, 2009

  128. And in order to settle these issues by consensus, we have to ensure that no one is being bullied, threatened, or coerced against expressing their opinion.

    Comment by V the K — January 1, 2009 @ 4:05 pm - January 1, 2009

  129. Or at least tell the truth, when they are.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 1, 2009 @ 4:18 pm - January 1, 2009

  130. “I ask, why not? There are people who say it is unfair to prevent children from expressing themselves sexually. The ACLU is a stalwart defender of NAMBLA. There are even a handful of “psychologists” who think that such relationships are harmless. There are also activist groups pushing for the normalization of a wide variety of other depraved sexual practices.”

    Healthy expression of sexuality by children is not the same as pedophilia. Pedophilia is the sexual use of a child by an adult to satisfy the needs of the adult. The ACLU is absolutely NOT a stalwart defender of NAMBLA. The ACLU has defended NAMBLA the same way it has defended Rush Limbaugh. It defends free speech, not criminal acts that harm others. Kinda the same point I think you tried to make in post #90. What are those activist groups you say are pushing for the normalization of depraved sexual practices ?

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 4:20 pm - January 1, 2009

  131. I think another thing that’s has not been totally clear in this debate is that it is one thing to boycott a corporation that uses business resources to engage in political activity. (Miller Brewing Company sponsoring the FSF, for example.) Quite another to attack a business because one individual employee expresses her freedom of speech.

    Comment by V the K — January 1, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - January 1, 2009

  132. “I guess I just don’t understand. There are a lot of laws I disagree with here in Ohio (the smoking ban being one of them) but I respect that they were passed in the method established by the government of the state. I don’t attack their validity by applying a standard of ‘due process’ that doesn’t exist.”

    Well, I think we certainly pick our battles for a variety of different reasons. I am not attacking the validity of the driving/cellphone/texting laws that have been passed in California, because I understand their logic and importance for public safety. It is a law that applies to everyone equally. If the law said that only men could talk on hand held cell phones while driving, and no one else could, then I’d probably attack the validity of the law. In the case of same sex marriage, I see absolutely no basis on which to deny consenting, non-related adults who want to marry the exact same right I have to make that decision and carry it out, incurring all the responsibilities and benefits that decision brings with it.

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - January 1, 2009

  133. The ACLU is absolutely NOT a stalwart defender of NAMBLA.

    Did the ACLU defend, pro bono, the right of NAMBLA to distribute information on how to rape children and get away with it? Yes, they did.

    Was a president of an ACLU chapter later arrested for possession of child pronography? Yes, he was.

    Does the ACLU defend the free speech rights of anti-abortion protesters? No, they do not.

    Is there a pattern here? Yes, there is.

    Comment by V the K — January 1, 2009 @ 4:27 pm - January 1, 2009

  134. Did the ACLU defend, pro bono, the right of NAMBLA to distribute information on how to rape children and get away with it? Yes, they did.
    Was a president of an ACLU chapter later arrested for possession of child pronography? Yes, he was.
    Does the ACLU defend the free speech rights of anti-abortion protesters? No, they do not.

    The ACLU consistently stands for the expression of free speech. The fact that a chapter president was arrested for child porn has about the same effect on the organization as when a Republican congressman or schoolteacher is arrested for that offense. It doesn’t mean republicans support child pornography, or that all schoolteachers are pedophiles. In the case of the abortion protesters, the ACLU did not take a side, but filed a friend of the court brief regarding when speech constituted an actual physical threat. The judge happened to disagree with them, and the due process system carried on.

    But again, that is pretty off topic of this thread, so I don’t see the need to expand the debate on the ACLU and NAMBLA.

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 4:44 pm - January 1, 2009

  135. The ACLU consistently stands for the expression of free speech.

    Not for anti-abortion protesters (as you admit, because while they “took a side” with NAMBLA, they did not with the issue of anti-abortion protesting) and not for people who want to express their religion by erecting a creche on public property.

    The ACLU is quite selective about what it chooses to represent, and how it chooses to interpret the Constitution.

    Frankly, I think our freedom of speech would survive quite well if pedophiles were not allowed to distribute instructional materials on the rape and murder of children. But, in any case, anyone who chooses to defend that kind of speech, while refusing to defend other kinds, implicitly condones it.

    Comment by V the K — January 1, 2009 @ 5:03 pm - January 1, 2009

  136. The ACLU consistently stands for the expression of free speech.

    Oh, so the ACLU opposed the Fairness Doctrine? Or is now going to oppose Pelosi on its return? And the ACLU opposed the vicious attempts by the Kerry campaign in 2004 and the Obama campaign in 2008 to harass and intimidate TV stations that ran ads and/or documentaries critical of those candidates? And is a leader in fight against the “speech codes” that campus left-wingers promote? I’ll stop. I mean, we could be here awhile.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 1, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - January 1, 2009

  137. I don’t see the need to expand the debate on the ACLU and NAMBLA.

    Nor do you apparently see the need to explain why you want the decision of what recognition to give different forms of sexual expression to be the province of a government body instead of social consensus. Or why businesses should be punished when an individual employee expresses her free speech rights? Or why it’s okay to punish people who express unpopular opinions (unless, of course, they are advocating child abuse, in which case, you support the ACLU defending them)?

    Comment by V the K — January 1, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - January 1, 2009

  138. What are those activist groups you say are pushing for the normalization of depraved sexual practices ?

    That would be the gay community.

    Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.

    Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.

    The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.

    Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off…….

    Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.

    “Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2009 @ 5:54 pm - January 1, 2009

  139. Or, sarah, if you don’t like that, try this one, where gay advocacy groups insist that age of consent laws have a “disproportionate impact” on gays, namely because it is “common” for gays to have sex with children who are seventeen years younger than they are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - January 1, 2009

  140. I just gotta ask you, NDT — how do you really feel about homosexuality? Cause, from where I’m reading, you seem pretty hostile to homosexuality, equating it with pedophilia.

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 8:37 pm - January 1, 2009

  141. BTW, as a heterosexual woman who was once younger than 18, let me tell you there is no shortage of heterosexual men that want to have sex with underage women.

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 8:39 pm - January 1, 2009

  142. I just gotta ask you, NDT — how do you really feel about homosexuality? Cause, from where I’m reading, you seem pretty hostile to homosexuality, equating it with pedophilia.

    Better question, Sarah; why don’t you have anything to say about the gay people who, in the two examples I cited, specifically link homosexuality to pedophilia?

    Answer: Because you don’t condemn pedophilia when your fellow gay liberals practice it. You only are interested in attacking me for CRITICIZING gay liberals who engage in child sexualization and pedophilia, which you consider to be “being hostile towards homosexuality”. You are concerned less with what is happening than the possibility of being branded homophobic or hateful.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2009 @ 10:56 pm - January 1, 2009

  143. NDT, why do you answer your questions to me before I do? Why do you keep telling me what I think, what I’m concerned about , what I believe? If you have a question for me, I’ll do my best to answer it. I guess I can assume you aren’t gay. Am I correct? I haven’t responded to every single thing every single person has posted on this thread, and I don’t necessarily know who is gay and who isn’t. For your information, I’m not gay. In addition, I’m completely and totally against adults engaging in sexual acts with minors, whether or not they are gay. I realize this becomes more of a murky issue when dealing with individuals who are 17 and 21 — I myself was a 17 year old who became involved with a man 10 years older than myself that I eventually married (and divorced 8 years later). I don’t consider my ex-husband a pedophile.

    So let me ask you again — how do you feel about homosexuality? Can you answer that very simple and direct question?

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 11:53 pm - January 1, 2009

  144. Oh, btw about your post 137 — that wasn’t the “gay community”. That was 2 individuals, who I agree are a little effed up when it comes to parenting young children.

    Comment by sarah — January 1, 2009 @ 11:56 pm - January 1, 2009

  145. I guess I can assume you aren’t gay.

    I’m not surprised you do, sarah; it should be obvious to everyone by now that investigation of facts, the use of logic, and the avoidance of stereotyping aren’t characteristic of either your thought process or your postings.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2009 @ 12:20 am - January 2, 2009

  146. I’ve had a sudden realization. Have you all heard of Godwin’s Law?

    “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

    I have a theory that there is another law that the longer a usenet discussion related to gays grows longer, the probability of a comparison to pedophilia or NAMBLA approaches one. Can I be the first to call this “NorthDallasThirty’s Law”?

    Comment by sarah — January 2, 2009 @ 12:20 am - January 2, 2009

  147. So NDT — how do you feel about homosexuality?

    Comment by sarah — January 2, 2009 @ 12:22 am - January 2, 2009

  148. So let me ask you again — how do you feel about homosexuality?

    Which kind, sarah?

    The kind that you use to make excuses for child molesters and pedophiles?

    The kind that you use to make excuses for punishing people whose religious beliefs and thoughts you don’t like?

    The kind you use to equivocate and rationalize your campaign to drive people out of business and throw them out of jobs over a $100 donation?

    Because that’s all homosexuality really is to you; it’s an excuse for you to carry out your leftist hate agenda. Hence your inability to recognize that I am gay — because in your twisted little leftist world, no “real” gay person would be opposing you or your ideas.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2009 @ 12:25 am - January 2, 2009

  149. I have a theory that there is another law that the longer a usenet discussion related to gays grows longer, the probability of a comparison to pedophilia or NAMBLA approaches one. Can I be the first to call this “NorthDallasThirty’s Law”?

    LOL…and again, sarah, all you demonstrate is that you put the highest priority, not on attacking pedophilia or NAMBLA’s behavior, but on criticizing the people who point it out.

    No comment on why “gay rights” groups are arguing that sex with minors is a good thing? Not surprising; that would require you to actually criticize them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2009 @ 12:33 am - January 2, 2009

  150. Oh, btw about your post 137 — that wasn’t the “gay community”. That was 2 individuals, who I agree are a little effed up when it comes to parenting young children.

    Which is why, of course, they were allowed into the fair, they were bragging about what they’d done in the newspaper, and there was exactly zero condemnation of their behavior from either the fair leadership, HRC, or any of the other gay groups out there.

    One would THINK that such abnormal behavior would result in some sort of condemnation or investigation. Nope.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2009 @ 12:39 am - January 2, 2009

  151. In response to #112 — no I can’t read Marjorie’s mind, but I think it is reasonable to assume that if someone donates to a proposition campaign, they support that campaign.

    “Assumption, my dear, is the mother of all fuckups. It couldn’t possibly be because that while she favors gay marriage, she opposed how it came about? Maybe she opposes the way the court system handled it. Maybe she approves of gay marriage, but doesn’t want to see Californians shat on to get it. Maybe she, like President Bush, opposes gay marriage, but supports the states, and not the courts, in deciding on their own to allow unions.

    You’ve told us that you know how she thinks and used the claim that you don’t as a CYA.

    What’s more, why don’t you answer NDT’s questions instead of replying with questions of your own? He’s not the issue here. If you can’t answer, just say so or ignore it. Don’t get all defensive and attack him (yes, you did) instead.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 2, 2009 @ 2:20 am - January 2, 2009

  152. Oops! Forgot to close the quote. Here ya go!

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 2, 2009 @ 2:21 am - January 2, 2009

  153. Actually, it’s sarah antoinette helmsley who’s doing the issue here. She can’t answer the question, “If social consensus can decide pedophilia is unacceptable, why can’t a social consensus decide same sex marriage isn’t a privilege we want to extend just yet?” So, she dumbs it down to, “Are you saying all ghey people are pedophiles (paraphrasing)?” to steer the debate away from the awkwardness of her position, which can be summed up as “What I think should be, should be. Those who disagree are wrong and should be punished for their insolence.”

    Comment by V the K — January 2, 2009 @ 8:17 am - January 2, 2009

  154. Well, social consensus used to say slavery was acceptable, that segregation was acceptable, that a husband could rape his wife, that interracial marriage should be illegal. The process of changing laws in this nation is not solely dependent on what the social consensus is — all of these laws were changed not because social consensus changed, but because the courts studied the constitution and said that these things were unconstitutional. I don’t really understand why a gay person would inject pedophilia into a discussion about same sex marriage, but I can certainly be limited in my understanding of a person’s motives, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

    So VtheK and NDT, I think this discussion has really reached an end point. Anything I say will merely be responded to with more name calling and ad hominem attacks, so I’ll just wish you a happy new year and good health and freedom in 2009. Oh, and I also condemn gay rights groups that advocate for having sex with minors, and parents who dress their children up in bondage outfits.

    Comment by sarah — January 2, 2009 @ 12:33 pm - January 2, 2009

  155. 152 Um, history lesson. Slavery, discrimination based on race, the end of both came from the ammendment process, not the courts. And the enforcing of laws, not the courts.

    Indeed, the courts upheld slavery. See Dred Scott.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 2, 2009 @ 12:47 pm - January 2, 2009

  156. Oh, and Dan,

    If you hold off two weeks, I’ll have a new girl in the area who would love to go. *laugh*

    Comment by The Livewire — January 2, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - January 2, 2009

  157. This is where the kind of mob rule sarah antoinette supports leads, as students at New School protest to remove president. His thoughtcrime? He supported the Iraq War.

    Comment by V the K — January 2, 2009 @ 1:49 pm - January 2, 2009

  158. [...] am always fascinated by which of our posts lead to sustained comment threads. I had not expected my post announcing a dinner for blog-readers at Hollywood’s El Coyote would excite such [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Dinner at El Coyote Sunday 01/04 — January 2, 2009 @ 6:25 pm - January 2, 2009

  159. Sarah….rock on.
    You are the only one sane voice out of all of these self loathing Uncle Tom’s Log Cabin homosexuals.
    I stumbled here by chance….Never to return.
    What a fu@ked up group….

    Comment by Tex... — January 5, 2009 @ 8:15 pm - January 5, 2009

  160. Tex,

    how can we miss you if you never go away?

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 5, 2009 @ 8:35 pm - January 5, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.