Last year, from a seat on bloggers’ row in the (metaphorical) rafters the Excel Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, I watched the Republican vice presidential nominee deliver a speech that wowed us all.  ”If this were baseball,” I wrote from those rafters, “the ball would be up here.  Or further.  She’s hitting this out of the park.”

You could feel the energy in the hall.  You could feel it as people left the auditorium, seemingly floating, not walking, back to our cars and busses.

“Leaving the hall” last night, reports the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, Republicans seem to have had similar feelings, offering “reviews of [this year vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan’s speech that ranged from ‘fantastic’ to ‘awe-inspiring.’  If any were underwhelmed, they didn’t show it.”  Even non-Repubilcans liked it.   One 2008 Obama voter blogged that “Ryan did a brilliant job. It was much more than a fine speech and an excellent delivery. He embodied that speech. We saw a brilliant candidate.”

Jim Geraghty called the speech “Reaganesque“.  Ryan skeptic Paul Mirengoff dubbed it “optimal“, his blogging colleague John Hinderaker called it “fantastic.”  The fetching Wisconsin Republican criticized, as Jennifer Rubin observed, “‘more in sadness than in anger’ with great expression of empathy for fellow citizens.”

Glenn Reynolds listed his favorite lines, including the one about “fading Obama poster”.  Maybe everyone is buzzing about that one, but two other passages which struck me, the first, Ryan ribbing his running mate for his choice in music.  Can you imagine Joe Biden making fun of Barack Obama’s tastes in music (or anything else for that matter)?*

Perhaps, I should cite his conclusion where he harkened back to our nation’s “founding principles”, but it was this passage where he articulated one of those principles that really resonated with me:

In a clean break from the Obama years, and frankly from the years before this president, we will keep federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, or less. That is enough. The choice is whether to put hard limits on economic growth, or hard limits on the size of government, and we choose to limit government.

In the Declaration of Independence, Mr. Jefferson listed the British government’s “long train of abuses and usurpations” against the American people.  The Constitution placed strict limits on what the new federal government could do. (more…)

Reader MV passed along this interview David Lampo gave on Republicans and gay rights:

Having received a review copy of David’s book, A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights, earlier in the summer, I read it and had mixed feelings. Perhaps, I should take the time to write a more formal review.

Lampo does a good job of debunking notions of anti-gay attitudes in the Tea Party, but at times, repeats the gay left narrative about Republican intolerance.

That said, if you have a moment, give the video a watch.

Priceless.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Since I was driving to Denver yesterday, I was unable to participate in the “Kiss-in” at the Hollywood Chick-fil-A.  Had I been in town, I may well have joined in, having fun by finding a fetching fellow to kiss in front of the franchise, then walking into the restaurant and buying him a nice chicken meal, while ordering a nice cup of their most refreshing lemonade for myself.

Given some of the photos (via Instapundit) I saw from the “Kiss-In”, it seems that most protesters were more interested in expressing themselves than in presenting a positive image of same-sex affection. Yeah, a three-person kiss and signs like “Eat More Carpet” will go a long way to changing social conservative attitudes toward gays.

Now, these folks were surely having fun.  One thing that’s great about America is that they are free to express so flamboyantly their opposition to the views of the chicken chain’s president.

But, just as such flamboyant displays of disagreement likely will make it more challenging to change minds, so too is labeling opposition to gay marriage as “hate” little likely to foster dialogue.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the Rev. Sarah Halverson of Fairview Community Church did just that, saying she

 . . . respects [Chick-fil-A President Dan] Cathy’s right to free speech, she said, but also exercised her own right to speak out against what she considers hate speech.

“We have the right to stand in disagreement with another’s speech,” she said.

At a Chick-fil-A in Torrance where vandals painted the words “Tastes Like Hate” on the side of the restaurant Thursday night, the “National Same-Sex Kiss Day” was off to a slow start.

She’s does have the right to stand in disagreement.  That said, we should also consider whether the way we stand causes those with whom we disagree to reconsider their views.  Calling those views “hate speech” is not likely to effect such reconsideration.  If anything, it may cause them to double down in disagreement.

NB:  Tweaked the conclusion to improve its flow.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Just Me finds it to be a shame that some utilize the confrontational tactics, “because I think gays would get much further by engaging in legitimate debate than the in your face, deliberately provocative displays that don’t pay any respect to the other opinion or with any attempt to find common ground.”

As some gay activists are planning a “kiss-in” at Chick-fil-A franchises across the country today, the LA Times reports that a number of activists are “questioning whether such outward displays of affection will ultimately help or hurt their cause“:

But even among LGBT supporters, some wonder whether such an in-your-face act might be too provocative, or amount to taunting.

“I respect not patronizing their establishment … but by taunting them in their establishment is hate-filled and inciting anger and hate,” said one commenter on a Causes.com page urging people to participate in the kiss-in.

Suggested another: “Its okay to disagree but its not okay to confront a person on their views in such an aggressive and provocative manner. There are forums for that.”

Via Instapundit.  Well, I did kiss a guy at Chick-fil-A Wednesday night and had he been more boyfriend, the kiss would have been, well, a little more affectionate.  Anyway, I’m with Ed Morrissey (and Mike Huckabee!) on this one:

. . . there is nothing wrong with protesting over Chick-fil-A’s political connections or ownership’s political views, as long as protestors obey the law in doing so.  That is a perfectly acceptable free-speech, free-market approach to disagreement within commerce.  I’d rather see kiss-ins than lawsuits, for instance, and certainly more than seeing politicians extort businessmen to support their political agendas, as is exactly what Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel attempted to do in Boston and Chicago, respectively.  Protests that don’t block customers from accessing the business or act violently are a good release valve for a free society.

Now, there is a difference between kissing someone out of affection and kissing someone to make a statement. And the latter seems to serve only to politicize an intimate gesture.  So, the question we should ask is how will the kiss-in be seen? (more…)

Via Walter Olson (on Facebook) via Lachlan Mackay (also on Facebook)

My sincere apologies that it appears the last place this video is posted is at my very own blog!

My intent was to get this posted here sooner, but it just wasn’t possible until this morning. The video was shot on Wednesday, but it wasn’t cleared by the powers-that-be until Thursday morning. Well, I was driving from Charlotte to Jacksonville, FL all day Thursday. (I’m in JAX for the RedState Gathering…. more on that later)

So here it is, members of the GayPatriot community — my trip to Chik-Fil-A on Wednesday…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As a lemonade lover, I find it relatively easy to order a lemonade at restaurants, but rarely, alas do I chance upon a good cup of my preferred summer drink.  Most establishments serve a processed version of that refreshing beverage.

Last night at the Hollywood Chick-fil-A, I enjoyed a deliciously tart cup of lemonade.  Had it not been for politically correct politicians  attempting to keep the chicken chain out of their cities, I likely wouldn’t have visited the local franchise.

Their demagoguery coupled with Mike Huckabee’s decision to create Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day served as promotion for the chicken chain.  Now that I know how tasty their lemonade is, I’ll likely return when I’m craving a cup.

Mayor Menino and his politically correct cohorts may have been trying to deny Chick-fil-A business because of its owners politically incorrect views, but he instead succeeded in making me aware of the restaurant’s wonderful lemonade.  How many other people yesterday discovered the quality of the chicken chain’s products and intend to return to try them again?

Last night, Allahpundit linked an interview with the man behind Chick-fil-A appreciation day, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. I don’t always agree with the charismatic social conservative, but this time he’s spot on; I encourage you to watch the video in its entirety. It’s only four minutes.

Huckabee made it clear that this was largely about freedom of speech, not about gay marriage, as some would spin it.

Just after the 2-minute mark, he says he’d love to ask the various urban politicians (who want to block Chick-fil-A from building franchises in their community) what gave them the “right to censor” commerce just because they disagreed with “someone who worked there.” Then, he points out that the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Ben and Jerry’s and Starbucks all “give generously” to support same-sex marriage, yet he still partakes of those products.

“I’m not buying their politics,” he emphasized, “I’m buying their products.” And that’s what I felt like last night when I joined a gay and a lesbian reader at the Chick-fil-A on Sunset & Highland in Hollywood.

How many products do we buy everyday with a full knowledge of the political views of the owners of the company show produces?  On my desk, by this Apple computer, I see a variety of Uniball pens, Stabilo and Dixon Ticonderoga pencils, a Canon camera, a Sony digital recorder, a cup of coffee made from beans bought at Starbucks, a bowl which until recently contained McCann’s Irish Oatmeal.

I have been impressed by their quality of these products.  Now, from Governor Huckabee’s interview, I learned that two of those products (the computer and the coffee) have CEOs who support state recognition of same-sex marriage.  What do the CEOs of the other companies support?  I don’t know.  I do know that I like their products. (more…)

Along with two readers, Chris H and a former left-leaning lesbian, I ventured out last night to the Chick-fil-A at Sunset and Highland in Hollywood.  I had to park three blocks away.  When I arrived, the line for the drive-thru wrapped around the block from McCadden (where the entrance was, onto Sunset and then onto Highland.

I joined my lesbian friend in long line to a packed restaurant.  We would not be able to find a seat in the outdoor seating area (and had to stand while we ate our meal).  A news team was there and interviewed me when they learned I was gay.

The crowd was very supportive as I made clear that this was about freedom, saying that I disagreed with Mr. Cathy’s stand on gay marriage, but also that I disagreed with Ben and Jerry’s politics, but still eat their ice cream.

Chris soon arrived and we hugged, right in front of Chick-fil-A. No one insulted us. In fact, one woman thanked me for saying when I did. She would not be the last patron to approach us when we indicated we were gay.

It was almost a party atmosphere, with everyone friendly. My lesbian friend said it reminded her of a Tea Party. The service was most polite. The manager Alex had remembered me from earlier in the day and welcomed me back. The food was good, with the lemonade particularly tart, the way I like it. Alex told me they squeeze the lemons fresh every morning.

And there were some protesters, most friendly, but a few angry.  (Pictures below the fold.)  When it was time for us to head home, I hugged Chris and kissed him on the cheek.   Our lesbian friend engaged the protesters. (more…)

There’s so much to celebrate today: My beautiful home state turns 136 today, Michael Phelps has made history with his 19th medal on behalf of America, and Ted Cruz not only won, but schwacked establishment candidate Lt. Governor David Dewhurst by a margin of over 13 percentage points in yesterday’s Texas GOP runoff, sending a clear message that the Constitution is back in business (or will be, come January) in the US Senate.

However, I have to admit, today is a sad dark day for America.

While Youcef Nadarkhani spends his 1024th day in an Iranian prison for the crime of having become a Christian, our Nation took another chip out of the rock of religious liberties as well. Surely we cannot compare the offense to religious freedoms that President Obama’s and Kathleen Sebelius’ mandate that employers abdicate their First Amendment rights (which goes in effect today) to those of Pastor Nadarkhani. But while mayors across the country attempt to deny a business owner his Due Process and First Amendment rights, today calls attention to just how far we’ve come in our Nation.

I actually woke this morning to a fraternity brother’s post on his Facebook page that read:

Btw american women everywhere, congratulations!

Today your insurance plans MUST ‘cover specific preventive health services for women without cost-sharing, such as deductibles, copayments and coinsurance. These services include well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, STD screening and contraceptives.’

…

I caution those who would vote for romney (especially women who would vote for romney) to recognize the implications of a repeal. We would eliminate the gains that have been made today, and will continue to be made by the landmark legislation for the next 5 years.

As offensive as it is to someone like me who’s pro-life to see someone write in literally congratulatory tones about the growth and spread of abortion, this is also symbolic of just how far we’ve come. (more…)

Glenn Reynolds quotes my fellow University of Virginia School of Law Federalist Don Boudreaux who in his centennial appreciation of the Nobel-prize winning economists offered this contrast between Mr. Friedman’s ideas and those of the incumbent President of the United States:

Note that Friedman would heartily agree with President Obama that no one prospers in today’s economy exclusively through his or her own individual efforts. Where Friedman would disagree – and disagree strongly – is with Obama’s suggestion that the main source of help that each of us gets from others is government. While government might supply some necessary pieces, such as highways and law courts, the vast bulk of what society supplies for each person’s sustenance and success comes not from government but from the ongoing private efforts of millions of individuals acting in free markets.

While I was celebrating a friend’s birthday yesterday at the happiest place on earth (with seemingly fewer happy people this summer than in past years), Glenn Reynolds linked and quoted from a blogger who offered a nice succinct, synopsis of an emerging consensus on the Chick-Fil-A hullabaloo:

Among pretty much everyone with a civil libertarian, or just plain libertarian, background, the verdict on the Chick-Fil-A furor is the same: while private persons and groups are within their rights to boycott a business, it’s outrageous and dangerous for government officials to threaten to use regulation to keep the fast-food chain out of their cities because they disapprove of its president’s anti-gay-marriage views.

Exactly.  Exactly.  Read the whole thing.

Do wonder yet again why Democratic politicians were so eager to attack this private company for the opinions of its president.  And to do so when they had no evidence that the company had ever discriminated against an employee because he was gay or denied service to or otherwise denigrated a customer because of his sexual orientation.

When I learned that upon the merger of Exxon and Mobil, the newly-merged company had decided to “cease offering health-care benefits to its employees’ domestic partners“, I resolved to stop filling up at Exxon or Mobil stations. ExxonMobil is a private company and should have the right to set its own employment policies. I am a private individual and have the right to choose where I buy gas for my car.

In a similar manner, two years ago, a private advocacy outfit, the American Family Association (AFA) announced a boycott of Home Depot, a private company like ExxonMobil, because, unlike said oil company, that home improvement superstore offered benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees.  This was not the first time the AFA had tried to boycott a private enterprise offering such benefits.  Sixteen years ago, the social conservative group launched a boycott against Disney.

We may not agree with their decision to boycott, but social conservatives should remain free to buy their home improvement supplies where they choose or seek recreation at destinations they select, just as I should be free to buy gas where I want and gay activists should be free to buy fast-food chicken at companies whose presidents have social views not averse to their own.

Interestingly, during all those AFA boycotts, you didn’t once hear a Republican politician try to curry favor with social conservatives by  vowing to keep Disney out of his jurisdictions or Home Depots out of her neighborhood.  They weren’t trying to impose their social views on the rest of us.

Why do so many liberals turn to government when they want to right something they believe to be wrong?

NB:  Tweaked the title so it would more accurately reflect content of post.

A number of readers (on both sides of the political aisle) have e-mailed me or otherwise messaged me to ask my opinions on or whether I would post about the Chick-Fil-A Hullabaloo.  To be sure, earlier this week, I had planned a post on the matter, but, as I started writing it, chose not to finish the post and leave the story alone.  The fast food chicken restaurant is, after all, a private enterprise, one of which I have patronized only occasionally (like maybe two or three times) in my life.

But, thanks to Democratic urban politicians eager to patronize the gay community (in response to activists suddenly upset that the chicken chain’s president had expressed support for traditional marriage), the story is not going away.

Last night on Facebook, my friend Rick Sincere (check out his blog here) offered a nice succinct statement on the story in which this smart libertarian summarized my basic response to the kerfuffle:

Property rights are human rights. Customers should be able to boycott a business; the government should not make that decision for them.

If you don’t like the fact that Chick-Fil-A’s president is a “devout” Christian who supports traditional marriage, then don’t buy his company’s product, but don’t attempt to impose your views on the rest of us by demanding that cities not grant permits to further franchises.

If cities determine to grant no business licenses to companies because of their management’s controversial politics, then we’d have to demand that cities grant no further licenses to Ben and Jerry’s franchises.

That said, the left-wing politics of that company won’t stop me from stopping by one of their stores on those occasions when I have a craving for a dish of chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream.

NB:  Tweaked the post to fix a clumsy sentence.

RELATED: You can favor gay marriage and still believe in the right to oppose gay marriage

FROM THE COMMENTS:  MV asks some questions that this story should cause us to consider: (more…)

In his statement praising presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s “Inclusive Tone” yesterday at the NAACP Convention, Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper added that “it is unfortunate that he countered his outreach to gay and lesbian Americans with a gratuitous attack on the freedom to marry.”

He did?

All he said about marriage was simply this, “As President, I will promote strong families – and I will defend traditional marriage.”  He never said he would deny individuals the freedom to form couples and define their unions as marriages.

Now, this is not to say I join Mr. Romney in supporting a federal constitutional amendment allowing states to recognize only traditional marriages as such. I don’t; I oppose this change to our national charter.

Clarke’s statement, however, suggests that marriage doesn’t exist in the absence of state recognition. To the contrary, marriage has existed as institution long before governments recognized it.  And many marriages exist today without the benefit of state sanction.

The issue in the marriage debates is not whether gay couples are free to marry, but whether the state should recognize their unions and grant them the same benefits they offer to straight couples.

Freedom doesn’t come from the state, but the state can limit its exercise.   (more…)

Just saw this on a car driving through Hollywood.

There are patriots — even here in deep “blue” America.

As diligent readers of this blog now, I am very skeptical of the notion of “equality” as pushed by the various left-leaning gay groups. They tend to want to achieve “full equality” through greater government regulation of our economy — and our lives.

Sometimes, they become so blinded to this notion that they neglect the original goal of gay rights’ movements–to make it possible for us to live freely and openly without our sexuality preventing us from participating in society or advancing professionally. They seem to think we need government to grant us more “rights” in order to effect the needed social change.

A new study seems to show quite the opposite, confirming a point I’ve been making for as long as I’ve been talking about gay issues, that all we need is economic freedom, given that private enterprises tend to respond readily to changes in society. Even in the Bush era, I noted, an increasing number of corporations adopted non-discrimination clauses as part of their employment policies and expanded their benefits packages to include same-sex partners.

Others have also studied how economic freedom helps people like us.  Through “Regression analysis of up to 65 countries“, Niclas Berggren of The Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN) and Therese Nilsson of the Department of Economics, Lund University; Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN) find that

. . . economic freedom is positively related to tolerance towards homosexuals, especially in the longer run, while tolerance towards people of a different race and a willingness to teach kids tolerance are not strongly affected by how free markets are. (more…)

Last week, our reader Chris H offered a comment which goes to the heart of the Republican dilemma among gays — and social liberals, particularly those who live in what current Breitbart blogger John Nolte dubbed the “blue islands” which dot our nation’s increasingly “red” landscape:

I had an interesting experience this weekend. I was at a BBQ this and one of my friends was complaining about how he is having to pay rent on a place where he’s trying to start a new business. However, he’s stuck in red tape hell because the city of West Hollywood, the Health Department and Alcoholic Beverage Control can’t agree on what to classify his business as. So.. he waits and waits. He said he could be out 45k before he even opens his doors.

This is the same friend that outwardly expresses disgust at Republicans and Conservatives.

I reminded him it’s not Republicans and Conservatives that support these kinds of crazy regulations.

He sheepishly had to concede.

“My gay friends sure hate those Republicans“, Chris offered in the thread following another post, “but when I discuss Liberterian/Republican concepts with out identifying them as ‘Republican’ I generally get agreement.”

Last year, I endorsed Mito Aviles for West Hollywood City Council even though that Democrat (who had hanged Sarah Palin in effigy) because he was aghast at the burdens local regulation placed on small business.

If these folks could get over their animus against Republicans, voting based on the parties’ relative stands on economic liberty rather than on the politically correct notions of partisan ideology, we’d see a surge in support that could make the 2012 election for the GOP what 1932 was for the Democrats.

More on this anon.