what's that smell?

[madmadmad]

that would be the stench of hypocrisy wafting off the religious right. from today's LA times:

"No matter your opinion of Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process," Ron Prentice, of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement. Boycotters were "unabashedly trampling on the rights of others," he said.

us trampling on their rights- what a bunch of hypocritical bags of shit!


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boycott14-2008nov14,0,7176761.story

[bluedawg12]

1. The only thing that a boycott tramples on is the bottom line.

In more ways than one.

[lapfog_1]

2. "Churches... participating in the democratic process"

Uh, THAT'S the problem right there. yup. hit the nail on the head.

I hope to God that people intimidate and harass churches that involve themselves in the democratic process.

[madmadmad]

9. i don't undertand why the IRS doesn't remove their exemt status.

we can't stop their preachers from saying what they say because of freedom of speech, and i would never want to try either- it's their right. but they are actively lobbying, so if they want to continue to do that, they need to pay taxes. simple as that.

[cascadiance]

19. They are CURRENTLY allowed to do this when no party or individual running for office is involved...

We should CHANGE this so that these churches CANNOT lobby for or against a proposition without losing their tax exempt status. That should be a prop we put on the next state ballot!

[Maat]

3. The Californians Against Hate site has the most comprehensive ..

donor information I've seen.

Looks like I won't be buying at Nordstrom's anymore (not that I did buy there anyway).

www.californiansagainsthate.com

[Tigress DEM]

23. AND they focus on donations over $5,000.00

Since that LA Times piece speaks to the possible unfairness of boycotting the resturant for one individual's $100 contribution, when it's possible the rest of the staff and owners support gay rights, the CaliforniansAgainstHate website avoids that predicament. Anyone contributing $5,000.00 or more isn't a little mouse in the corner, they are real bigots.

[liberalla]

26. Yes! That's a great site I found while looking for something else.

Check out the DIShonor Roll list here

[terrya]

4. They sponsor bigotry, we call them on it and suddenly we're the bad guys.

FUCK THAT SHIT.

[AntiFascist]

5. You see what this is all about...

when the minority even attempts to exercise their own rights (which, by God, should include who you choose to do business with, and the freedom of expressing that choice and why) then they claim that their religious freedoms are being trampled, including the freedom to cram their oppressive beliefs down our throats.

[bluedawg12]

15. That's because our opponents are liars - recall all the GE crap from Palin?

They wouldn't know the truth even if it was to their own advantage.

The only game left for the rw is the hate play - other than that they got nada for policy.

[wryter2000]

6. I don't see anything wrong about it

Don't attack them or destroy their property. Make them public and humiliate them...go for it.

[madmadmad]

8. physically attack them? never. verbally attacking is fair game. boycotts, too.

they have been verbally attacking me for years, so i for one am not going to shut up until i have every right and protection under the law that they do. and then i won't shut up until their churches are stripped of their tax exempt status.

[wryter2000]

10. I meant physically attack

I didn't make that clear. I'm all for calling them the nasty, hateful bigots they are.

[madmadmad]

11. we gays generally don't get physically violent, so i'm not worried about riots.

[mondo joe]

17. Bullies and Republicans depend on secrecy. NT

[bluedawg12]

18. And lies

really big ones.

[yardwork]

7. Businesses aren't entitled to my money. Boycotts don't trample anybody's rights.

[ShenandoahAspen]

12. Boycotting is "unabashedly trampling on the rights of others"?

How so? Business have a right to fight against marriage equality -- and we have a right to boycott. And I have yet to hear of anyone being "harassed". You want to fight against marriage equality, fine. But you had better be prepared for some backlash if you do.

[xchrom]

13. for some the meaning of being 'christian' is the same

as 'persecuted'.

a shame really since the faith has a lot more to it than that.

[DarkTirade]

14. ...

...

......

...

... seriously, I can't even think of a serious or a smart-ass response to that. That's just... yeah. I can't even describe it.

[donco6]

16. Cool. It must be working better than I thought.

If they're squealing already . . .

[Tigress DEM]

28. Oh dear, did I just tee hee? I did.

I really feel bad when I'm entertained by other people's pain when they really deserve it.

[donco6]

31. schadenfreude's a bitch, eh? n/t

[Tigress DEM]

39. Gesundheit! A cold and Tourette's - You poor dear.

Sigh. I've become a snark.


"It's all in good fun until someone gets HURT."


My sincere apologies if you truly were offended.

[Tigress DEM]

20. UM, isn't boycotting a business PART of the DEM process?

You can support a cause if you so choose, but if you so choose, some people may not want to support you.

In a world that only seems to "get it" when financial support is removed, it's a peaceful means to an end.

Besides, whose rights are being trampled when churches, businesses and wealthy individuals decide to support taking rights away from others and "demanding" that people who might otherswise support them continue to support them?

IF they had spoken ONLY about specific intimidation and harrassment actions as being over the line, that MIGHT be understandable as a peace minded statement. BUT to call any boycotting an unabashed trampling on the rights of others, I'm not buying it.

[Tigress DEM]

21. One thought, the particular resturant - LA Coyote may have gotten too much attention. $100?

Since many of the staff there ARE gay and it was an individual not the restuarant itself, I see how it may be perceived as over the top.

If 99% of the staff and the owners are supportive of gay rights and 1 idiot made a contribution, it's a little unfair to the other 99% to be looped in for that individual's choice. Oh well, oops!

So in regards to one specific situation, maybe there is a tiny point. Extreme boycott strategy for a $100 contribution from 1 staff member may have been a bit much.

HOWEVER, it still doesn't excuse those who contributed to Prop 8 as individuals or as businesses or churches as a whole. ONE possibly valid example does NOT negate the entire approach.

I think maybe the "dishonor roll" is a better place to start, put the largest demonstrations on the largest contributors.

The website Californians Against Hate, which lists a "dishonor roll" detailing more than 800 donations of $5,000 or more to the Yes on 8 campaign is a good resource.

[gaspee]

22. Well...

From what I've read, it was the OWNER who donated the money - and to me, that makes all the difference in the world.

I'm not spending one penny of my money in a business who will then use My money to oppress me.

Not gonna happen.

[Tigress DEM]

24. I read it was the daughter of the owner, and since she is mormon her family might be too.

You may have better information than the LA Times article provided.

I guess, what I was looking at is not so much people like yourself choosing to spend their money elsewhere if ANYONE at El Coyote's contributed, but the 50 phone calls and huge protests being a bit of overkill for this particular donation.

Again, I am only going by the information from the OP article posted, and if it is slanted factually, then that doesn't surprise me.

My thought was simply to target those making larger donations so there isn't as much of a perception of them being a "victim".

I've been the actual victim of domestic violence where my spouse called the police on me as a cover for his own behavior. I wouldn't have poked his toe with the tip of my umbrella if he hadn't been trying to strangle me, still it all comes down to he said she said when the perp is smart enough to play victim.



From the article posted in the OP
<snip>
All because Marjorie Christoffersen, a manager there and a daughter of El Coyote's owner, had contributed $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

[gaspee]

25. There's a video

up on youtube with the meeting between the owners and members of the local GLBT community.

That may shed more light on the situation. A DU'er was at the meeting and posted about it - my donor status expired two days before the election and I can't afford to donate right now, so I can't search DU to find the threads.

[Tigress DEM]

27. Thanks, like I said, I was only looking at the article from the paper in the OP.

And the way the media gets loose and easy with facts it doesn't surprize me.

[madmadmad]

29. Tigress DEM- here's some background:

you can read the account of the el coyote boycott at a thread i started on it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=91148&mesg_id=91148

but to highlight for you in a nutshell, here's why it's about more then the dollar amount of the donation

1. el coyote has an extremely large gay clientèle- probably over 50%. thursdays it was over 90%- that was "gaynight"

2 though technically the restaurant is in her mother's name, her mother is 96 years old, in poor health and hasn't stepped foot in the restaurant in probably 15 years. marjorie and her sister are her sole heirs, and as the sister lives out of town, marjoire is the active partner in the restaurant. she is profiting very well from her participation, i gaurantee you (restaurant is HUGE, always busy and over-capacity with long waits for a table thurs- sun.

3. marjorie's working role in the restaurant is to come in for a couple of hours, probably 4 nights a week, and walk from table to table, smiling, and refilling water glasses- basically kind of a greeter. to faces she doesn't know, she'll just smile and ask how their evening is going, but to regulars she'll stop and chat for a bit, and that is one reason this donation feels like a personal betrayal- we thought she was our friend. i've been going there for 20 years, and i have friends that have been going for longer than that, and none of us had any inkling thtat margie was less than supportive of our rights.

4. because we love the restaurant and it's employees (even marjorie), when marjorie invited el coyote's gay regulars to meet with her about her donation, we went- hoping she would give us something we could forestall the boycott with. she did not- she issued a non-apology apology ("sorry if i offended you"), and actually reaffirmed her support for prop 8. most of us came to the conclusion that a boycott was necessary, even though some of our friends that work there remain helpless bystanders in this struggle. honestly, most of us walked into that meeting with great hope to avoid this action- she wouldn't give us ANYTHING we could work with to diffuse the gay community's anger.

5. this last point is purely my personal opinion- many people disagree- but since she and her family are devout mormons, they tithe a minimum of 10% of their income to the church. since the restaurant provides their income, eating there in effect subsides the church, and it's drive to take away gay rights. i will not give money to fund an effort to make me a second class citizen- remember this is a church that calls being gay an ABOMINATION. if our boycott was avoided by marjorie's apology, i still personally would have stopped eating there- i just would have made that decision on a personal level without the protests, posting in forums like this, blogging, etc. to me- and yes, i'm being dramatic- to continue to eat there would have been akin to a jew collaborating with the nazi's- simply unconscionable.

hope my long-winded explanation helps you see why we'd boycott an entire restaurant over a single $100.00 donation.

[mondo joe]

30. For protest/boycotts to be most frightening (ie, effective) they have to be unpredictable.

The unpredictable is always the most frightening.

The $100 donation isn't that big a deal. The message the protest and boycott sends is another thing.

[nichomachus]

32. No one quite plays the victim card like a Christian

Little known fact: Many of the early Christian martyrs demanded to be martyred. The authorities were leaving them alone, and they marched down to city hall (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) and asked to be martyred. In one case, the local governor said no -- repeatedly -- and they just kept coming back. Finally, just to shut them up, he tossed them to the lions.

It hasn't changed much -- except today's Christians are a little more cowardly. They just pretend to be persecuted.

[madmadmad]

34. republicans have played the victim card pretty well too...

oh wait- same thing.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Ellen Forradalom]

35. it reeks of smoke around my neighborhood

I think it's the smell of pissed-off gays.

[madmadmad]

37. what, are you calling us flaming?

if so, you are right! we're flamin' mad- i've witnessed smoke coming out of my ears on more than one occasion in the last week. :)

[Ellen Forradalom]

38. Y'know, flaming queer does have a whole new meaning now

[varun]

36. Time to start outing the homophobic priests

and show what kind of "Sanctity" they bring to marriage.