Friday, November 14, 2008

Gay Marriage Activists Escalate Campaign of Intimidation

Gay marriage protesters have escalated their boycott of business concerns who contributed to the passage of Proposition 8. The left's backlash is now a full-on campaign of intimidation and vengeance.

Prop 8 Boycotts

The photo above show hundreds of activists protesting at the El Coyote restaurant on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles. Marjorie Christoffersen, a daughter of El Coyote's owner, gave $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Christofferson is Mormon. She met with protesters Wednesday night to explain her contribution to the ballot measure, but was brought to tears by the angry recriminations against her, and she left town to avoid further attention and controversy.

The No on 8 forces also targeted Robert Hoehn, among others, a vice-president at Hoehn Motors in Carlsbad, after he gave $25,000 of his own money to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Hoehn was identified on the "dishonor roll"
Californians Against Hate, clearly an Orwellian attack outfit, considering that the group seeks to intimidate those who have exercized their constitutional rights to support a political campaign of their choice.

For some of the additional groups targeted, check the story at
the Los Angeles Times.

16 comments:

CKAinRedStateUSA said...

The harder they push, the more resistance they'll encounter.

And the more the American public will dismiss them.

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks CKA!

Anonymous said...

This is all to the good--let us see the forces of "tolerance" for the totalitarians they really are.

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks RedStateGal!

Anonymous said...

People have a right to contribute to political causes that they favor.

Other people have the right to boycott businesses that support issues they oppose.

You cant favor freedom for one group, and not for the other.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Other people have the right to boycott businesses that support issues they oppose.

The thing is, I heard one business owner on the radio talk about how he made a contribution for yes on Prop 8 as an individual, but not through his business. He ended up on some list at Daily Kos, targeting his business for disruption.

At what point is this intimidation crossing a line of decency and civility?

I'm a bit agnostic on the issue, but resent the characterization that this is some noble civil rights struggle and if you're opposed to it, then you're a hateful bigot. Where's the tolerance and understanding? It's demanded of one side, but not given out by the other.

repsac3 said...

@ Word: The business/personal distinction doesn't hold much sway with me, particularly when the individual is a decision-maker for the business. People's lives are not so compartmentalized that the things one does in one sphere should have no bearing or effect on any other.

At what point is this intimidation crossing a line of decency and civility?

There most certainly have been incidents of intimidation, and individuals on both sides have crossed lines in pushing for their point of view in this situation. I'm not so sure that every boycott & protest meets that definition, however... People have every right to frequent or avoid businesses based on whatever criteria they deem important.

[I] resent the characterization that this is some noble civil rights struggle and if you're opposed to it, then you're a hateful bigot. Where's the tolerance and understanding? It's demanded of one side, but not given out by the other.

For many--in fact most on the pro-gay marriage side, I'd bet--it is a civil rights issue, and while I wouldn't say that all who oppose gay marriage are hateful bigots, some obviously are. (See RWBPatriot, above). If the issue wasn't gay marriage, but interracial marriage, or marriage including adopted people, or dwarves, or blondes, and the majority voted to take away the minority group's right to partake of the same pie as everyone else, what would you call it?

As for tolerance, I agree with the definition below, which says that the imposition of of views by one group on another is not consistent with the term. Given the nature of society, tolerance is often the more powerful person's or group's to give to the less powerful person or group.

Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others. - Declaration of Principles on Tolerance - UNESCO

Also, tolerance is not an all or nothing proposition, as you seem to imply. Just because one believes in & encourages tolerance of others, it doesn't mean that one is willing to accept every idea or action they will ever meet in this world... One can judge on a case by case basis whether the ideas & actions they do not tolerate makes them a hypocrite, but being intolerant of what one perceives as intolerance isn't really that uncommon or wrong on it's face, in my book, anyway... There are ideas & actions that do not deserve to be accepted and allowed to continue unopposed.

For me, it's about imposition of values by one group (usually a more powerful one) on another (usually a less powerful one). I'm fine with those whose religious traditions & faiths teach them gay marriage is immoral. But I'm not fine with these people going out & enacting laws saying gay marriage is immoral & thus illegal for everyone, including those who do not share their faith or those beliefs about the morality of homosexuality.

The minute gay folks start forcing churches to officiate over gay marriages against their will and the tenets of their faith, or forcing straight folks into gay marriages, I'll oppose that, too.

Donald Douglas said...

"I'm a bit agnostic on the issue, but resent the characterization that this is some noble civil rights struggle and if you're opposed to it, then you're a hateful bigot."

Thanks Wordsmith!

Donald Douglas said...

Reppy: The U.N. is an international organization, and it's values are not only out of line with American practice, but the body is illegitimate with no sovereignty over the U.S.

The Human Rights Commission includes some of the worlds worst violaters.

I am not a bigot. I do not call gays epithets. In priniciple I have argued that gay marriage is in fact not a civil right, and the truth is this is just new round of radical nihilism by the left.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

They have been exposed for the frauds they are, going after an established religion and blacks is not smart.

repsac3 said...

The U.N. is an international organization, and it's values are not only out of line with American practice, but the body is illegitimate with no sovereignty over the U.S.

All that is at issue as far as UNESCO is concerned, is their definition of tolerance. Everything you said is irrelevant to that, unless you believe that the quote I posted from that document is wrong or out of line with American practice in some way.

I am not a bigot. I do not call gays epithets. In priniciple I have argued that gay marriage is in fact not a civil right, and the truth is this is just new round of radical nihilism by the left.

I believe you're not a bigot.

I do think you are incorrect about whether homosexuals should be allowed a legal ceremony of commitment affording them all the same rights & privileges as any other "married" couple, but I see no reason to call it marriage, unless it is performed in a church in accordance with religious teachings. (As I've said before, I'd prefer that the state get out of the marriage business altogether... Judges have no business performing religious rites, or passing laws about them.) However, as long as fed/state/local laws are written affording benefits to "married" couples, I believe it is a civil rights issue when one discriminates between people (couples) based on sexual orientation.

I'd ask you to define that "radical nihilism by the left" & explain how it fits into this situation, but I know better than to think you ever will...

Donald Douglas said...

Reppy: California provides the most extensive civil union rights and equal protections for gays in the country.

Marriage is historically, in civil law, and religious tradition, between one man and one woman - it's a simple as that.

The radical nihilists are all the neo-Stalinists who are sponsoring these protests around the country, and we've gone over my use of nihilist many times before.

You just can't away from the fact that you're in bed with people who would destroy our country, and of course, that's why I oppose your project.

repsac3 said...

Marriage is historically, in civil law, and religious tradition, between one man and one woman - it's a simple as that.

That "it's always been that way" is not a sufficient reason for it to always be that way... Many traditions recognized by church & state have changed, including the role of women, the role of blacks...

I agree that churches should make their own rules & follow their own traditions. But the state is a different matter. We do not look to God but to secular constitutions to define the positions we should take and the laws we should make.

we've gone over my use of nihilist many times before.

And in all the time we've been talking, & no matter how many times I've asked, you've never, ever even tried to show how the definition of the word (which you did post, once or twice) fits the words or deeds of the people you label with it. Not this time, either... Even Neo-Stalinists believe in something, where nihilists would not.

You just can't away from the fact that you're in bed with people who would destroy our country, and of course, that's why I oppose your project.

I call bullshit on that, as well... No one's destroying our country. Those pushing to include homosexuals as full participants in American life under law are doing so because we believe in the ideals expressed in our founding documents, and would prefer that all Americans reap the benefits to which we're entitled. It's as simple as that.

Anonymous said...

It is true that all of us have the right to demonstrate.

But as the saying goes, the right to swing your arm stops when it hits my nose.

Singling out a religion and intimitading individuals is the wrong way to demonstrate.

Being destructive by putting the restuarant owner out of business, or defacing a Mormon temple or intimidating worshipers is not the way to demonstrate.

If one is to demonstrate in America, one should do it respectfully to all, no matter what they believe.

repsac3 said...

First off, Anon, I think you may've been answering what I said over here, rather than anything at this thread.

It is true that all of us have the right to demonstrate. But as the saying goes, the right to swing your arm stops when it hits my nose.

I would agree, which is why those who're swinging their arms at gay marriage are such an affront to the noses of those who believe in equality under civil law.

Singling out a religion and intimitading individuals is the wrong way to demonstrate.

First off, the advocates of civil rights for all are not so much singling out any particular religion as responding to those religions who singled themselves out by donating time & money to a cause which we believe treats a small group of citizens as less equal than the rest.

Second, it is not intimidation to boycott and protest those businesses & other places where injustice lives, just because this blogger and others call it that. One wonders whether you would also believe it is "intimidation" when the cause is one with which you agree... For those who oppose abortion, fer instance... Are are anti-abortion protesters at clinics similarly using intimidation to get what they want, or is that somehow different?

Third, singling out a group of fellow Americans as less deserving under law is the wrong way to govern or be governed, if you ask me...

Being destructive by putting the restuarant owner out of business, or defacing a Mormon temple or intimidating worshipers is not the way to demonstrate.

I'd agree that any violence or vandalism is wrong. I have heard of very few incidents, especially given the number of citizens protesting on this issue, but any there have been should be prosecuted... And yes, those who disrupted the religious service were also wrong, and also deserve to face the legal consequences.

But boycotting the businesses of those who voted to take away rights, even if it puts those businesses in financial trouble, is perfectly acceptable. I don't believe anyone should be obligated to give money to those who will likely turn around & use it against them or the values of the country they love. People have used much less important criteria when choosing where & on what to (or not to) spend their money, and I believe folks have a responsibility to spend wisely, whatever that means to 'em...

If one is to demonstrate in America, one should do it respectfully to all, no matter what they believe.

I'm not certain I'd go as far as that. Yes, one should always respect law, and yes, one's fellow citizens do deserve to be treated as fellow citizens, even if we disagree as to exactly what that means, but there are beliefs & ways of expressing them that are less deserving of respect than others.

George Bruce said...

The socialist/utopians know that to remake society in their image, they must first destroy existing and traditional social institutions and structures. The traditional family is one of the things they must destroy. It is one structure that creates an allegiance of family member to family member, and husband to wife, which detracts from allegiance to the State. The gays are only tools to that end. This has nothing to do with “rights” for gays. This has everything to do with the destruction of traditional marriage. This has nothing to do with “tolerance.” This is an attack on society by those who want to destroy the existing forms and replace them with more “rational” and “scientific” institutions. In the brave new world they would create, all people, including gays, will have fewer rights and will enjoy no tolerance for behavior deemed anti-social. In a socialist utopia, gays may well be designated as expendable if their lifestyle is determined to be against the common good.

Consider the status of gays in the Soviet Union not long ago, and in Cuba today.