Recall the “insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob” in the immediate aftermath of the passage of Prop 8? Back then gay marriage advocates mocked Mormons, knocked a cross out of an old woman’s hands, boycotted a restaurant because on its employees cut a check to the “Yes on 8” campaign, forced the artistic director at the California Musical Theatre out of his job and otherwise insulted and vilified those who supported the successful referendum.
In our blog, we have several readers support such tactics, saying that those who sign a petition to overturn one state’s statute recognizing same-sex marriage or beauty queens who state their support of traditional marriage “have to live with the consequences” of what they say. If such consequences included civil criticism of their positions (similar to the response I outlined here), I would agree with my erstwhile critics. A person who makes public his opinion should expect it to be challenged.
But, he should not expect to be intimidated for those views.
The same logic they use to defend the tactics of “the same-sex marriage mob” could be used by intolerant anti-gay bigots to justify baiting gay people. They could say that by “flaunting” our sexuality, we’re just asking for ridicule and vilification.
Just as it’s wrong to intimidate or insult gay people who are open about their sexuality so too is it wrong to so respond to those who oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage.
Given the ridicule gay people faced in previous generations–and still alas today in some pockets of the country–when they came out, we should be the first to condemn anyone who publicly expresses a politically incorrect opinion.
I expect you will be condemning the AFA boycott of Ford, the SBC boycott of Disney, etc. from here on out, then?
Such “intimidation” is clearly uncalled for. They MUST be made to support Ford and Disney. Any other result would be “intimidation.”
Say, what was your position on people who condemed the Dixie Chicks, anyway?
Just more conservative double talk. They’re not being intimidated; they’re living up to the consequences of having an opinion that is unpopular with a substantial percentage of the population. It’s ironic that you defend the legitimacy of votes to deprive gays of rights but leap to the defense of conservatives who have been deprived of nothing they are remotely entitled to.
Also, I think your last line is not what you want it to be.
There you go again, GPW. . . using that oddity known as logic.
I run into the same lack of sense when pointing out the absurdity of Hate Crimes legislation.
Hate crimes bills, in part, say it is less a crime to just kill a gay /lesbian/racial type for robbery or no reason at all.
In my book they are very much the same, and in many cases, my version of justice would also be the same. Death by a single shot to the back of the head
JP,
I’d be more willing to entertain principled objections to hate crimes legislation if those objections hadn’t been miraculously discovered only when amendments were sought to include “sexual orientation” as a protected category.
Um, Alec, I have criticized the AFA Boycott of Ford. Google it; it’s on the web. And their boycott of Disney, having defended that good corporation repeatedly for not yielding. Indeed, it’s one reason I have invested heavily in the corporation, refusing as recently as yesterday my financial planner’s suggestion that I sell some of my Disney shares.
I’m not defending those conservatives, Alec, so much as criticizing those who resort to insults instead of arguments.
So you see it as a just consequence of their expression their opinion to lose their job and face public ridicule? So that means you defend those who would ridicule openly gay people, given that ours is a way of expressing our sexuality “unpopular with a substantial percentage of the population”?
I expect you will be condemning the AFA boycott of Ford, the SBC boycott of Disney, etc. from here on out, then?
Actually, then, we should be expecting you to endorse and support them.
Because, after all, since you support your fellow gay-sex liberals doing the same thing, your criticism of the AFA is hypocritical.
North Dallas: Not at all. I don’t agree with their substantive aims; that doesn’t mean I object to them boycotting those companies. I endorse their right to use that method, though, yes.
GPW: As long as their employers are not running afoul of the law in terminating them, and the public ridicule does not devolve into acts of violence, I have no real objection, no. I wouldn’t fire someone for their views on Proposition 8, but that’s me. On the other hand the conservative objections to ENDA and similar legislation are noteworthy here: Why should we be forced or pressured into supporting them?
You need to do a little research on that “knocked a cross out of an old woman’s hands”incident.. I have… and it appears that little incident and those “angry gays” were courtesy of the Chuck Colson dirty tricks machine…
Once a plumber always a plumber
I don’t agree with their substantive aims; that doesn’t mean I object to them boycotting those companies.
Of course you object; that’s why you insult and attack them. You’re merely trying the usual practice of the Obama Party in condemning the same things you yourself are doing.
Meanwhile, all that ENDA is about is simply ensuring that gay-sex liberals who aren’t qualified and refuse to follow workplace rules get preferential treatment.
Paula, I’ve seen the video. It has alas been pulled so. But, if you can provide credible evidence that it was staged, I’d love to see it. You said you did a little research, you should be able to provide the links.
#8 – Supporting the right to boycott and supporting the boycott itself are two different things. Also, what is the “Obama party”, and who are these “gay-sex liberals”?
So Alec, you would support those like Fred Phelps (D-Hell) to come camp on your doorstep or your place of work? Got it.
And you’d be grateful to receive anthrax scares at your place of work? Or bomb threats?
That’s the other part of the post you shy away from. Since you disagree with Dan’s post, I take it you’re all for threats and intimidation of people based on their sexual orientation.
Paula. Why are you complaining if (big if) the video was staged. After all you follow the teachings of Malcom X and believe terror is the answer.
Then again, it seems you’d support the above mentioned Fred Phelps burning the Castro district to the ground to get his point across.
So lets hear it for your ‘by any means’ philosophy. I mean it’s cool to talk about harassment and violence as long as you’re not on the receiving end of it.
Livewire,
As I’v said elsewhere, criminal acts of violence are different. Bu you can’t mix that in with some nonexistent right to customers and patrons.
As far as Phelps, he has a right to protest, too. Subject, of course, to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
NorthDallasThirty: No, I don’t support the substantive aims of their boycotts, i.e., I don’t want Disney to rescind, inter alia, its domestic partnership benefits. That doesn’t mean I will support the boycott, too. That’s a very…warped view of the matter.
As far as ENDA, it doesn’t create any preferential treatment. Heterosexuals would also be protected from being terminated on the basis of their sexual orientation, and there’s no room for promotion on the basis of sexual orientation (as it stands right now, btw, there’s nothing that would prevent private or public employers from adopting such measures; ENDA would probably put a stop to any preferential treatment).
My point with ENDA, though, was to illustrate how this conservative double talk is simply nonsense. If you don’t support ENDA, you really have no business objecting to boycotts of busnesses in the wake of Proposition 8. The underlying principle, the so-called “right to discriminate,” is the same (although no such “right” exists in the commercial context, but that is an aside). Unless, of course, you’re simply motivated by anti-gay animus and simply support anti-gay results, in which case you’re merely an unprincipled bigot (and yes, the term would be more than appropriate in that case).
If you don’t support ENDA, you really have no business objecting to boycotts of busnesses in the wake of Proposition 8.
It is always interesting to watch the blatant hypocrisy of gay-sex liberals like Alec who throw screaming hissy fits every time a gay person is fired for any reason, but who themselves are out barricading parking lots of businesses and screaming at patrons demanding the firing of people based on to whom said people gave money and how said people voted.
But again, this is Alec we’re talking about, who thought that Proposition 209, banning preferential treatment by race in California, was a “racist” law. You’ll note Alec had nothing to say about how Massachusetts’s ENDA law made it possible for a gay-sex liberal incompetent to get and keep a job for which they weren’t qualified based on their LGBT status, as I cited above, or how Minnesota’s ENDA law made it possible for an individual who demanded sex from her subordinates and openly discriminated against those who wouldn’t give it to her and straight people to not only be promoted, but to completely avoid being fired because a lawsuit under Minnesota’s ENDA would restore her position. It’s not about “equality”; it’s about guaranteed jobs based on sexual orientation and irrelevant of performance.
Thank you Alec,
I’m conflicted on boycots myself, for friendly fire. Organizing a boycot against a corporation like Disney is fine by me, for disney’s policies I know I lobbied at work for opposite sex DP coverage, since there was same sex DP coverage.
Boycotting a restaurant for the actions of an employee are something else. lots of friendly fire there. Not to mention wouldn’t it be more of a solidarity statement to go to the restaurant and say “I don’t want Bill as a waiter, I’ll wait until Ted has a table free”?
Since when is boycotting considered intimidation? If that’s the case, then the Prop 8 whiners who boycotted that Mexican restaurant because the owner came out in favor of it were guilty of intimidation as well.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
NorthDallasThirty:
Please stop repeating the lie about proposition 209. I was talking about Prop 14 from 1964, which prohibited the state from enacting housing discrimination laws. http://holmes.uchastings.edu/cgi-bin/starfinder/2359/calprop.txt
It passed by a much larger margin (more than 65%) and was later invalidated by the Supreme Court on 14th amendment grounds.
1) The preferential treatment afforded the FTM transgender individual is rare and was not a result of Massachusetts state law, from what I can see, but a quirk of a local minority preference system. It is different from laws that protect individuals from discriminaton on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. That would be like comparing Title VII to quota programs and policies; they’re entirely different.
2) The case you cite now involved sexual harassment, not an anti-discrimination statute for sexual orientation. As with many anti-gay fanatics, you beome somewhat rabid when cornered and apparently lose your capacity to reason.
3) I’m still not sure what a “gay sex liberal” is (unless you mean a self-identified liberal who sometimes has sex with men, guilty as charged). Regardless, I’m not upset every time someone who is gay is fired; only when they’re fired for being gay.
Please stop repeating the lie about proposition 209. I was talking about Prop 14 from 1964
No, you weren’t.
BTW, American Elephant, Californians also affirmed racial apartheid in initiatives.
Actually I wasn’t referring to Prop 209; I was referring to an initiative that passed in the forties or fifties
I was referring to the passage of a popular initiative in California over half a century ago.
First you used the plural “initiatives”; then, when you were called on that, you tried to weasel your way out, getting the dates hilariously wrong as well.
The preferential treatment afforded the FTM transgender individual is rare and was not a result of Massachusetts state law, from what I can see, but a quirk of a local minority preference system.
Unfortunately, what was it that you claimed about “nondiscrimination” laws before?
ENDA would probably put a stop to any preferential treatment
Massachusetts HAS an “ENDA” law. Obviously it does NOT end preferential treatment, and in fact promotes and supports government programs that provide preferential treatment based on sexual orientation.
The case you cite now involved sexual harassment, not an anti-discrimination statute for sexual orientation.
Wrong.
The city of Minneapolis was so terrified of losing a lawsuit under the state’s ENDA statute that it refused to fire a fire chief who had nineteen sustained allegations of misconduct, INCLUDING proven cases of discrimination and retaliation against people who refused her sexual favors.
That should be a slam-dunk case. But under ENDA laws, gay-sex liberals can’t be fired because doing so is “homophobia and sexism”.
Geez, ol’ Alec is backtracking worse than San Fran Nan regarding the waterboarding issue!
(Chuckles, reaches for popcorn.)
Regards,
Peter H.
North Dallas Thirty: Who are these “gay-sex liberals” you keep talking about?
NorthDallasThirty: I was wrong about the date of the initiative. I’ll grant you that. But I was never talking about Proposition 209.
Anyway, it would have been clear from the entire thread (in its original, pre-edited to suit your interests form) that I was never talking about banning preferential treatment for racial minorities. You came up with that one out of left field.
NDallas: You’ve also not provided a single example of a state law similar to ENDA mandating preferential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In the one example you purport to cite, there’s no mention at all of anything apart from a vague “policy.” So you lose, yet again.
Keeping score, Peter?
In the one example you purport to cite, there’s no mention at all of anything apart from a vague “policy.”
Unfortunately, what was it that you claimed about “nondiscrimination” laws before?
ENDA would probably put a stop to any preferential treatment
Massachusetts HAS an “ENDA” law. Obviously it does NOT end preferential treatment, and in fact promotes and supports government programs that provide preferential treatment based on sexual orientation.
NorthDallasThirty: I was wrong about the date of the initiative.
Initiatives, you mean.
And very simply put, gay-sex liberals like yourself demonstrated that they support preferential treatment for racial minorities and consider opposition to that to be “racist”.
Ndallas:
1) The NGLTF does not speak for every gay American, nor even every gay liberal. I haven’t said anything about laws that mandate racial preferences.
2) You haven’t referenced a single part of the MA law that promotes preferential treatment for individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The existence of one program in a municipality is insufficient; they could easily be running afoul of the MA antidiscrimination statute.
3) Please define “gay sex liberal” for us.
The NGLTF does not speak for every gay American, nor even every gay liberal.
Ah, but you see, there’s more, much much more.
There are LGBT organizations in virtually every letter, but pay particular attention to G and H, where you find “Human Rights Campaign”, among others.
The existence of one program in a municipality is insufficient; they could easily be running afoul of the MA antidiscrimination statute.
Actually, the MBTA is, and I quote, “a body politic and corporate, and a political subdivision of the commonwealth, under the name of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority”.
In other words, your argument is that the state of Massachusetts is violating its own laws.
States violate their own laws all the time. That’s right up there with feigning surprise when the government does something unconstitutional. You still haven’t pointed to the provision of the antidiscrimination statute that mandates preferential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.
So what if a lot of gay and liberal organizations opposed prop 209? I didn’t. I was talking about Prop 14. Keep it simple.
I’ve been fired for being gay twice. I grabbed my sack and moved on to bigger and better. Didn’t wallow in self-pity nor did I harass and threaten anybody. I sure as hell never demanded that anybody like me.
#30 – That’s nice. Personally, I’d rather not lose my job for entirely arbitrary and immutable reasons but hey, if that’s how you roll…
The funny thing here, Alec, is that like all gay-sex liberals, you think you can continue to make claims while demonstrating your repeated ignorance.
You claimed Californians passed multiple initiatives that caused “racial apartheid”; you were refuted with facts.
You changed your story to claim one “initiative” passed in “the forties or fifties”; you were refuted with facts.
You claimed MBTA was a “municipal agency”; you were refuted with facts.
You are demonstrating what a gay-sex liberal is, which is a gay person who uses their sexual orientation as a substitute for competence. You can do that in the Obama Party, but it doesn’t work well in the business or any other world. Of course, that’s why gay-sex liberals want laws like ENDA passed, so that you can force businesses to do like your Obama Party does and reward people based solely on skin color and sexual orientation.
#23 – “Keeping score, Peter?”
Yep, and as usual you are fourth-and-long facing the wind and with a 3-touchdown deficit in the fourth quarter.
Regards,
Peter H.
#29 – “States violate their own laws all the time.”
Really, Mr. Baldwin? Name a couple and provide examples, please. Otherwise your argument is without merit.
Regards,
Peter H.