Monday, December 08, 2008

Gay protesters claim another victim in California

The manager of a popular gay hangout in Los Angeles has been run off after it was discovered that she contributed to Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the Golden State. When the champions of tolerance and diversity found out that Marjorie Christoffersen, manager of El Coyote, donated $100 to the Proposition 8 campaign, they went ballistic, boycotting the restaurant and conducting protests. But today the restaurant announced she was leaving the restaurant, which is run by her family.

Christofferson apparently had no problem being tolerant and diverse herself, and spent her time going from table to table happily serving customers, whatever their lifestyle. But when her donation was discovered--a donation she refused to apologize for, the Gay Tolerance Police kicked into high gear, denying everything they say they stand for.

I know what you're thinking. How can people who spend so much time preaching against hate act this way towards those with whom they disagree? Please try to suppress this politically incorrect thought, and repeat to yourself as often as necessary that it is the people who politely disagree with gays who are hateful, not gays themselves, who are giving more evidence by the day that they don't mean what they say.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cothran,

Why so much time and energy spent on gay protesters and so little to say about torture, a far more important issue? Here is a useful website with two well-made videos that highlight torture as a moral issue.

http://www.nrcat.org/

Sincerely yours,

Robert Fasso

Martin Cothran said...

Robert,

Why are you saying this on a post about gay protesters? Why didn't you show up on a post about economics, about which I have spent a whole lot more posts lately?

Why are you saying I am spending too much energy on gay protesters and not enough on torture? Why aren't you complaining that I spend too much energy on economics and not enough on torture? Or on Intelligent Design, or atheism, or education, or any one of the numerous topics I talk about on this blog?

Why is it that you don't want me to talk about this one issue?

Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

Hey Robert, if torture is so important, where is your blog on the topic?

One Brow said...

Martin,

I appreciate you taking a stand against those uppity homosexuals, who have the nerve to think that, just because a person supports laws that make them unequal, that person shouldn't get their money. You have to wonder how they get the nerve to insist on completely equal treatment, when they should just be glad this woman tolerates them enough to take their money.

In other words, the zipper keeping your hypocrisy and bigotry in was just left open.

Stevo said...

Mr. Brow,

Since it seems you have not already learned this from previous discussion, the words hypocrisy and bigotry will get you nowhere.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

If you define "uppity" as someone who wants to force everyone else to overturn a law with thousands of years of kind of extreme form of egalitarianism that was alien to the thinking of the people who set up our form of government--and short circuit the processes of republican government and demean civil discourse to do it, then I'll accept the characterization.

Lee said...

> I appreciate you taking a stand against those uppity homosexuals, who have the nerve to think that, just because a person supports laws that make them unequal, that person shouldn't get their money.

Funny isn't it how marriage laws for aeons have always been intended to make uppity homosexuals unequal. Why didn't we hear about this issue, oh, back before about 1990?

Oh, I forgot. This is a brand new right. Just made up since, oh, around 1990.

As I have pointed out in other threads, the obligations placed by any laws recognizing homosexual marriage are placed on others to recognize the relationship as a valid marriage.

I think when conservatives do that sort of thing to liberals, they call it "forcing their morality on us."

When liberals do it to conservatives, it's called "equal treatment".

One Brow said...

Mr. Brow,

Since it seems you have not already learned this from previous discussion, the words hypocrisy and bigotry will get you nowhere.

One Brow is a single name, like Mary Jane> :)

Tnaks for the advice, I didn't expect this to go anywhere.

One Brow said...

If you define "uppity" as someone who wants to force everyone else to overturn a law with thousands of years of kind of extreme form of egalitarianism that was alien to the thinking of the people who set up our form of government--and short circuit the processes of republican government and demean civil discourse to do it, then I'll accept the characterization.

That was difficult to parse, but it seems as though you like the use of "uppity" to describe the boycotters/protesters.

Also, do you mean to include Brown vs. Board of Education or Loving vs. Virginia as tresults that "short circuit the processes of republican government and demean civil discourse"? Or was it the activities of the civil rights activists in the 1960s?

One Brow said...

Funny isn't it how marriage laws for aeons have always been intended to make uppity homosexuals unequal.

In addition to women and racial minorities.

Why didn't we hear about this issue, oh, back before about 1990?

First you need to have acceptance as a person before you can gets the rights of a person.

As I have pointed out in other threads, the obligations placed by any laws recognizing homosexual marriage are placed on others to recognize the relationship as a valid marriage.

You mean, "others who provide a public accomodation or access", of course. If you have a private business you can't be forced into acepting anything.

I think when conservatives do that sort of thing to liberals, they call it "forcing their morality on us."

I'm sure that liberals make false accusaitons against conseratives as well as the other way around. However, in the past I have seen such sentiments directed toward, for example, anti-sodomy laws and issues in which there is no concern about a public accomodaiton being offered. Perhaps you could mention a specific example?

When liberals do it to conservatives, it's called "equal treatment".

In private matters, including religious matters, you have the right to be as discriminatory as you please regarding sexual orientation, race, or gender.

Martin Cothran said...

That was difficult to parse, but it seems as though you like the use of "uppity" to describe the boycotters/protesters.

Also, do you mean to include Brown vs. Board of Education or Loving vs. Virginia as tresults that "short circuit the processes of republican government and demean civil discourse"? Or was it the activities of the civil rights activists in the 1960s?


Actually I was thinking in terms of activist liberal judges who have operated outside statutory sanction and scrapped the constitutions of their states to make policy in violation of the separation of powers. Forced busing comes to mind.

Brown v. Board of Education is widely thought by conservative legal scholars (and others) to be an example of the pursuit of a good end (desegregation) by ultimately harmful means (judicial activism).

By demeaning public debate, I mean nothing other than the kind of rhetoric in your post that automatically assumes that anyone who disagrees with you is evil despite the fact that you know nothing of the motives of those with whom you disagree.

Lee said...

>> Funny isn't it how marriage laws for aeons have always been intended to make uppity homosexuals unequal.

> In addition to women and racial minorities.

Yep. I'm exactly sure that the very first people who codified marriage into law did so precisely to oppress homosexuals. I don't suppose the form-follows-function part of our anatomical and psychological make-up is what led us to originally define marriage as between man and woman. Nope. It was all designed as a slight against homosexuals.

> First you need to have acceptance as a person before you can gets the rights of a person.

Why is it someone's right to force me to accept homosexual marriage as a legitimate institution? As I stated, the obligation of recognizing such marriage falls on me and people like me who do not recognize it as a moral option. On the other hand, the current legal situation imposes nothing on a homosexual couple that wants to live together and pretend they're married. The impositions go the other way. That's the way it works: someone "rights", however defined, imply everybody else's responsibilities.

> You mean, "others who provide a public accomodation or access", of course. If you have a private business you can't be forced into acepting anything.

Ask the folks at eHarmony, owned by Christians, if that's the case. They were just forced to start providing hookups for homosexuals.

When this comes about, I will be part of a public polity that recognizes homosexual marriage as a legitimate arrangement. I'm sure the specific obligations would follow afterward, but that's already a show-stopper for me. If that's the way the electorate wants it, well, then I will have to obey that or find some other place to live. But so far, when the electorate has been allowed to have an input, it's been going the other way. Which is why liberals 'last resort is always the courts. When the electorate is on your side, it's vox populi all the way; when the electorate is not on your side, let's see if we can get some judges on our side. If neither one is on your side, bang on the table and scream.

> In private matters, including religious matters, you have the right to be as discriminatory as you please regarding sexual orientation, race, or gender.

Discriminatory. An intertesting term. It wasn't discriminatory forty years ago, it wasn't discriminatory twenty years ago, but it's discriminatory today. The joys of rhetoric.

But actually, that is not true, and to the extent that it is true, it will probably not be true much longer. I would call the eHarmony situation "a private matter". Regarding religious practices, in Australia, you cannot preach in the pulpit against homosexuality because it violates their "hate crime" laws. I would call that "a religious matter". If they're doing that in Australia, they're thinking about doing it here.

So, basically, I don't find such reassurances reassuring.

Anonymous said...

Martin,

Your overheated response to a simple question tells me I’ve touched a nerve.

If I wanted to be a smart aleck, I could simply copy and paste my remarks to several of your threads and replace “gay protesters” with “economics,” “Australian movies,” “bailing out Detroit,” “intelligent design,” etc. Instead, I’ll give you a straight answer.

Why bring torture up on your blog? Recently I was walking to a nearby park and I saw a large banner on a church that read “torture is a moral issue.” I was surprised and delighted to see members of a religious community taking a stand on this problem that has done so much to disgrace America. I’ve often wondered why so many on the religious right, who make such a show of their supposedly superior morality and godliness, support policies such as offensive war and torture that cause so much human suffering. I thought of “Vere Loqui” as a place where I might get an answer.

Why bring up torture on a thread about gay protesters? Before doing so, I searched the site to see if you had any posts on the subject of torture being practiced by the United States. There are none, nor is there any place for a person to raise issues (yes, I know, get my own blog). It so happened that when I went to your site the most recent post was on gay protesters. Conveniently, your inclination to go after gay people is also one of your most unseemly positions and so I posted there. But, yes, I could have posted it anywhere. By linking the problem of torture to your obvious distaste for homosexuals, I allowed you to duck the issue. Let me try again: Why don’t you have anything to say about the United States practicing torture?

By the way, you ask, “Why is it that you don't want me to talk about this one issue?” Show me where I said that. I asked why you spend so much time on gay protesters while saying nothing on torture. I never said that you shouldn’t talk about gay protesters.


“Paul,”

I don’t need to start a blog on this because the National Religious Campaign Against Torture website has already done a fine job of framing the issue. Your answer reveals your wish to keep the problem of torture as distant as possible, which in turn suggests that you know you can’t defend what the Bush administration has done. Is that how you conceive of the free play of ideas? Don’t talk about anything Martin doesn’t bring up first? Here is the URL again: http://www.nrcat.org

Though neither of you want to give straight answers, your evasions are telling. It appears you would rather indulge your bigotry than address genuine controversies.

Robert Fasso

Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

...you know you can’t defend what the Bush administration has done.

I don't know what the Bush administration has done, and I have little interest. I also have sincere doubts that the Obama administration will do anything much different.

My point was a simple one. When a man writes, and someone else faults his choice of topic, it is, at best, disrespectful of that man's right to express his opinion on the topics he finds important.

Surely the right to free speech must compass the right to select on what topic a man will express himself.

Anonymous said...

Paul,

The first part of your response essentially defends ignorance. I disagree. Each of us has a duty, as citizens in a democracy, to be informed. Where have you been for the last eight years? And if you don't know what the Bush administration has done, how can you say that Mr. Obama won't do anything different?

Yes, the right to free speech encompasses the right of a man to choose the topics he wishes to express himself on. But it also encompasses the right of others to criticize those choices. He put his opinions before the public, didn't he? I don't think it is disrespectful to comment on his choices. On the contrary, taking the time examine and comment on someone's work shows respect.

My simple argument is that Martin, like many but not all conservative thinkers, would rather pursue relatively trivial matters instead of tackling more important problems such as U.S. involvement in torture. He can write whatever he wants in his blog, but such choices are telling. And no one is beyond criticism, however much they might like to be.

Robert Fasso

Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

Nobody knows everything, Robert. I know what the Bush administration has done on the issues most important to me.

Martin, I feel sure, could say the same. So could you.

Your problem is that you object to the fact that Martin is writing on a topic that you don't think is important, when you're not writing on it either.

You said that you don't blog about torture because someone else is doing that. But in that case, why should Martin have to blog about torture? Why should I?

You may think that the redefinition of marriage and the destruction of the family is a "trivial" matter, but most people (at least in places where people are allowed to vote) disagree.

This is a red herring. You're trying to distract us from fighting against something you support without having to make the arguments in support of it. It's you who are fostering ignorance -- ignorance of the threat against marriage, family, and our culture. And the reason is so that you can then, while appearing to take a bold stance against of the evils of torture, work behind the scenes in support of gay "marriage".

I know enough about torture to know that it's far less significant than the slaughter by abortion of 1.5 million innocents in the US alone, and a far smaller threat to our culture than the destruction of the family that is represented by elevating infertile homosexual relationships to the level of "marriage," thus totally disconnecting the engendering and raising of children from the institution of marriage.

This is the topic you choose to distract people from. Not, as Martin pointed out, from one of his posts about economics, or any of his many other topics.

You hypocrisy is showing.

Martin Cothran said...

I don't blog much about torture because almost everyone is against torture. I suppose I could come out against the Holocaust too, but I don't see any particular need to do that. No one needs any convincing. That is not the case with many of the other issues I deal with here.

Anonymous said...

Martin,

Fair enough. Thank you.

Paul,

You have an active imagination. The fact that I am working behind the scenes in support of gay marriage is news to me.

Robert