The Politics of Hate.

The culture war is starting to escalate into a real war.  It seems to me that the far left side of the political spectrum is more--shall we say "animated"--than the far right.  I find it interesting that the left is also willing to overtly target Mormons.  Here's a disturbing example from Saturday's Wall St. Journal.

LOS ANGELES -- Soon after California's passage of a initiative banning same-sex marriage last month, dozens of gay activists descended on the El Coyote restaurant with signs and placards. They chanted "Shame on you," cussed at patrons and began a boycott of the cafe.

Marjorie Christoffersen at El Coyote Cafe, the target of a boycott over her support of California's Prop 8. The restaurants's crime: A daughter of the owner donated $100 to support Proposition 8, the antigay-marriage initiative approved by voters. Gay activists have refused to lift the boycott -- which restaurant managers say has slashed revenues by 30% -- even after some El Coyote employees raised $500 to help repeal the new ban.

The boycotters have demanded that the owner's daughter, El Coyote manager Marjorie Christoffersen, pony up $100 to help repeal Prop 8. She tearfully declined, citing her Mormon faith, during a raucous meeting with activists.

Comments

[Name:]

It is true that they're targeting Mormons, but to give the more complete picture in the WSJ features this tidbit:

"The cafe also has long served as a gay hangout, which is why boycott organizers say they chose to target it after they discovered Ms. Christoffersen's donation."

It's hard to feel sorry for the people running a gay-friendly business when they get involved in the "wrong" side of gay politics. Not to say they're complete hypocrites, but close.

[todd]

This is not an example of "targeting Mormons" but of targeting someone who donated to prop 8.

[Gerald]

Attacking Mormons or evangelical Christians are easy targets. Black churches also supported the prohibition against gay marriage but they get a pass because gay rights activists aren’t stupid. Attacking black churches would not be politically correct, even for aggressive in your face homosexuals. They are boycotting Utah even though it was California that passed the ban for the same reason. Once again, the left only supports free speech if they agree with your position.

[todd]

Gerald,
How is a boycott against free speech? This sound like whining to me.

[The Klute]

Frankly, I think this is a little more disturbing shot in the "culture wars":

*****************
SAN FRANCISCO - A woman in the San Francisco Bay area was jumped by four men, taunted for being a lesbian, repeatedly raped and left naked outside an abandoned apartment building, authorities said Monday.

Detectives say the 28-year-old victim was attacked Dec. 13 after she got out of her car, which bore a rainbow gay pride sticker. The men, who ranged from their late teens to their 30s, made comments indicating they knew her sexual orientation, said Richmond police Lt. Mark Gagan.
*******************

Later in the article,

*******************
"Anytime there is an anti-LGBT initiative, we tend to see spikes both in the numbers and the severity of attacks," he said. "People feel this extra entitlement to act out their prejudice."
*******************

Forgive me if I don't man the barricades if gay activists use a legitmate form of publich action against someone who took money from GLBT community in one hand and then gave it to the anti- community in another.

[Name:]

If the SF rape story is legit, so be it. But there are some copycat clues along the lines of the McCain supporter being black-eyed by the Obama supportera few months ago.

First, the story says there were four men, none in custody, and no witnesses other than the victim. Second, the description is that the perps were late teens to early 30s. No race, no other description, no clothing details, etc. Third, the bumper sticker issue is identical to the episode mentioned above. Fourth, an abandoned apartment building in SF is the crime scene. That's a clear indication of an urban legend in the making if you know anything about SF real estate.

Not saying it didn't happen, just that it's highly questionable.

[todd]

Name - I sounds like the crime scene is in Richmond which could quite possibly have many abandoned buildings. I think the other issues you bring up might be more bad reporting or information not conveyed to the press.

I do think it is perhaps much to tie this to Prop 8. Rather, this is all too common violence against LGBT people. LGBT people are routinely beaten, raped and even murdered based on hate and I think it might be helpful to remember this when we see posts talking about "aggressive homosexuals."

[Jim Torgeson]

It's sad they are acting like terrorists. I used to go to that restaurant (I grew up in LA).

Boycott the place because of the daughter? This is like the Nazi's imprisoning people because they were Jewish sympathizers.

I understand the protesters position, but not their action.

[Ann]

Why compare the justification of bad actions in order to justify any? Raping, or crying rape, as a means of assaulting an oppositional entity or person is a terrible shame and shame on those who may have. There is no good side or understandable actions.

When choosing to attack an easy target, which the restaurant may be as the vehicle for your message, is a dangerous move if engendering support for your position in a highly emotional and divisive issue is the goal. The real message may be one of petulance and entitlements over and above others rights and reveal a supposed superiority that backfires drastically.

[The Klute]

Jim,

Are you really comparing the non-violent boycott of a restaurant to 1. the indiscriminate murder and maiming of people and 2. incarceration of people in a concentration camp?

If so, you have dumbed down the definition of actual terrorism and Nazi atrocities to the point which makes those acts meaningless.

[The Klute]

Ann,

Out of curiosity, if you were advising the GLBT movement, what would you suggest they do? They tried appealing to people's better angels - asking for equal, not special rights. The response that they've gotten is at best that they're ill; at worst they get that they're on the side of the forces of darkness.

Other than trying to (peacefully) choke off the money that feeds propaganda campaigns against them, what would you suggest? Just sitting back and doing nothing. You seem to buying into the Homer Simpson argument: "You tried, and you failed. The lesson? Never try.".

[Joe G.]

You're seeing the totalitarianism of tolerance.

[The Klute]

And like Jim who needs to look up the definition of "terrorism", Joe G. needs to look up the definition of "totalitarianism".

To quote Rush Limbaugh, "words mean something".

[Arugula]

Hey Jim, have Christians ever boycotted anything? If yes, would you consider it an act of terror?

You all seem to be making the mistake of thinking LGBT people have any power beyond that of peaceful protest. The only other thing available to an oppressed minority is violence.

Consider, if you will, the difference between MLK Jr. and Malcolm X. Which one was more likely to boycott in order to make an activist statement, and which one seemed more likely to endorse acts of violence.

If this, the legitimate and peaceful use of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, is what you people consider terrorism, the past eight years of paranoia makes a hell of a lot more sense. You're acting like frightened children.

Totalitarian governments have locked people up and let the whole "right to trial" thing stagnate while the prisoners wither and die away from their families, all based on rumor and hearsay that the people in question have sympathized with "undesirable elements."

If any of you can see something like that happening to white Christian anti-gay males any time soon, you probably have a paranoid personality disorder and should seek help immediately.

[Joe G.]

Soon as you look up tolerance. ;-)

[Ann]

Klute,

I have waged my own personal boycotts and am particular about who and where I spend my dollars. My decisions are based on my personal political and religious views. The degree of effect may be minimal but my conscience is clear; I have not supported organizations/businesses that support things I find wrong or immoral. The difference is this is not a personal issue but one of a group of people. It is both a political and religious issue to most people.

The tactic of singling out a sympathetic figure will not help them but cause more anger. It makes the claim of just trying to get along disingenuous and a transparent ploy. The opposition to gay marriage will not be worn down by militant factions that put businesses and individuals in financial or personal peril based solely on their support of Prop 8.

I could answer your question specifically but the answer is apparent. And sorry, I have never watched The Simpsons’.

[Faith]

How is this different from the various Christian groups that boycotted Disney because of its so-called "embrace of the homosexual lifestyle"?

[Jim Torgeson]

Klute and Aregula;

Get a grip. First, destroying someone's livelihood does border on terrorism. How would you like your paychecks diminished or eliminated because of your view or the view of a co-worker? Demonize that person, right?

It simply leads to tension, anger and potential violence.

I am not against gay marriage. I also think that it's not our government's place to recognize marriage, but rather a civil union, a contract, that gives a legal status for taxes and benefits to both gay and straight couples. Legal, binding and non-religious.

We have not the right to make a church recognize a marriage nor the right to say they cannot. It's called freedom.

I also think it is completely obnoxious that any church group can try to force it's view upon anyone else.

Examples include that moron who wanted Fox to cancel Married with Children. She was so stupid that she ended up making it a huge hit. BTW, I loved that show.

Let's add Tipper Gore and the PMRC to that list. Do not attempt to school me on this subject as I have read every word of the transcripts, studied it and come upon the obvious conclusion that when religion and government decide on censorship, you can end up with strange bedfellows in a sort of "liberal fascism."

In no way do I think forcing a woman to recant her opinion (or donation) is an appropriate action of the "pro gay marriage" faction. It is an abuse of a freedom, that we tolerate so that we can continue to have free speech.

It's the same as if "anti gay marriage" demonstrators rallied outside some gay man's restaurant. It would probably hurt his business. Not fair either, but you must tolerate it. Not everything is fair, sucks, huh?!

Anytime you create fear for your safety, you have created a terrorist atmosphere. Go look it up.

Anytime tolerance is not accepted, you create an atmosphere for hate... and, yes, ask German Jews. I know one who escaped through a tunnel as the rest of her family was imprisoned and eventually killed. Do you think her people wre tolerated much less accepted in Germany?

Deal with it. You'll get more flies with honey. If those protesters were demonstrating the humanity of their position rather than hurting some family restaurant, they'd get farther.

No one wants another's position forced on them. This goes for both sides.

Tolerance is the first step to acceptance and by gay marriage proponents showing no tolerance, they aren't helping their cause.

Remember, you become what you fight, so fight for something, not against it.

[The Klute]

Jim,

"First, destroying someone's livelihood does border on terrorism."

No, it doesn't. I can send you links if you need to see what actual terrorism is (recent attacks by Islamic extremists in India sadly gave us another slideshow). By your defintion, ValleyMetro is a terrorist (how many businesses failed during light rail construction?).

"How would you like your paychecks diminished or eliminated because of your view or the view of a co-worker?"

Tell it Disney. Or CBS. Or any other company that's ever been boycotted. That's the point of a boycott - to cause economic disruption in order to force change upon the orgainzation.

"Demonize that person, right?"

Why not? Gays and lesbians have been demonized for years - strangely, that medicine doesn't taste too good, does it Jim?

"It simply leads to tension, anger and potential violence."

Tell it to the Freedom Riders. Or Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Or anyone who has ever tried to affect social change ever.

"We have not the right to make a church recognize a marriage nor the right to say they cannot. It's called freedom."

These lies... Are you just repeating them or are you propagating them? California's statute never would have required any religious entity to perform or recognize a marriage. Just the state.

"It's the same as if "anti gay marriage" demonstrators rallied outside some gay man's restaurant."

Yeah. Wouldn't that be weird. Fun activity -Google: "Westboro Baptist Church".

The 1st Amendment doesn't offer a "Satisfaction Guaranteed or Your Money Back" clause.

"Anytime you create fear for your safety, you have created a terrorist atmosphere. Go look it up."

From what I saw of the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, I was afraid. Can I report the RNC to HomeSec to get them on a watchlist. Sorry "Oooh, I'm scawed of da bad people" isn't a definition of terrorism.

"Do you think her people wre tolerated much less accepted in Germany?"

As the child of a Holocaust survivor, I don't need to be given examples of what happens when the majority decides what to do with the minority. And no, your Holocaust/concentration camp metaphor is not apt. The majority population told the minority who they could and could not marry. If we're going to breaking Godwin's Law, I could point to the doctrines of racial hygeine and treatment of homosexuals in the Reich if you want to go down that road.

"Deal with it. You'll get more flies with honey."

All in due time, right? As a very mortal species, we don't have time for people to unlearn the prejudices.

"Tolerance is the first step to acceptance and by gay marriage proponents showing no tolerance, they aren't helping their cause."

You're asking for politeness in the face of bigotry. I'm not sure how you can justify that.

[Retrorv]

Excellent post Klute.

[todd]

I have a simple question - when, in 1963, SCLC led boycotts against local businesses in Birmingham that depended on black consumers yet also promoted segregation, were their actions bordering on terrorism?

[Arugula]

Klute pretty much already crushed the opposition but I'll weigh in one more time anyway.

Being "polite" and "tolerant" of the majority that has SUCCESSFULLY CAMPAIGNED AGAINST YOUR RIGHT TO MARRY THE PERSON YOU LOVE and is CURRENTLY TRYING TO NULLIFY MARRIAGES LIKE THE ONE YOU WANTED TO HAVE is not a way to effect social change.

MLK Jr. has been repackaged by the modern media as a kindly, peaceful Morgan Freeman-type black man that never made whitey feel bad about excluding him from things. This was not the case. He fought, he was loud, he was angry, he disrupted businesses, he did NOT keep the peace.

The way you induce change is to show the people you want to influence that the blade cuts both ways; "if you won't let us marry, we won't let your business succeed." It's called, say it with me for the 40th time now, A BOYCOTT: That Thing You're Allowed To Do To Express Dismay At Business' Practices Or Associations.

They weren't keeping anybody from entering the business, that would be illegal. They were telling everybody they could that if they wanted to support a business that was okay with a segment of the population being in love, marrying, visiting each other in the hospital, and inheriting property and shit, this is not the place for you. It was up to every single person involved to make their choice based on the facts presented by the protesters.

It's disgusting to me that every example of boycotting and protest that has come from the Right has just been a peaceful invocation of family values and God's Rule of America, yet when someone that doesn't fit into your neat little box is feeling really fucking marginalized, you won't accept any display of power or solidarity from them without characterizing it as an act of war or even TERROR.

Terrorism, like the big unseen collective of homos is ready to destroy your marriage while you look upon the ruined rainbow hellscape of your suburb, shaking your head and muttering "there goes the neighborhood."

If 51% of the state got together to nullify your marriage and say you could never do it again, you'd probably be PISSED. Would you just throw up your hands in defeat and go "welp, that's democracy, time to live the single swingers' lifestyle until the end of days!" How... un-American.

[Arugula]

Okay, I can't let this go.

" First, destroying someone's livelihood does border on terrorism. "

So are you against businesses downsizing in order to maximize stockholder profit? That destroys livelihoods, cancels health insurance, and sometimes drives people to suicide.

Yeah, that's doesn't make much sense does it?

You don't have the RIGHT to invoke "terrorism" and throw the word around like it's the new "Hitler." You will never experience or understand the real meaning of terrorism and only the lingering threads of my unconditional love for humanity is preventing me from wishing that some day you would.

Grow a fucking spine, you're not being terrorized. LGBT doesn't want to put up with everyone else's shit anymore so they're fighting for their rights, no matter how determined you are to end up on the wrong side of history.

[Jim Torgeson]

I only hope someone goes after you because of your opinions. Maybe you'll get it. It may be freedom of speech (and absolutely protected - thank God), but it is wrong.

You completely lack tolerance and have become as intolerable as those you demonize.

Tell you what; if I start cutting off your income, will you find it acceptable?

Maybe you don't understand economics, but certainly you don't understand you won't get compassion through threats.

By your alternyms, you are obviously vigorously liberal. Try embracing some of the concepts like freedom of speech, expression and beliefs. Please don't be a "free to believe... like me" kind of person.

I wouldn't vote against gay marriage, but I think destroying someone's livelihood because they did is immoral and repugnant.

Again, get a grip. No one is being crushed here. In fact, you are amusing me.

[Arugula]

You have the freedom to hate gays. Gays have the freedom to tell you your food sucks and they don't want to eat it. 30% of the restaurant's customers have the right to believe the gays.

Nobody's speech is being trampled. What you're complaining about is freedom of association, peaceful protest, and boycotting.

The reason everyone is being mean and angry is because arguments reliant upon compassion, empathy, and reasoning are anathema to the religious right.

You totally have the right to tell people I don't support the 10 Commandments in Court Houses, and if you can get enough of my customers to give a shit and not utilize my services, I'll pay attention.

To say I completely lack tolerance is ridiculous. Tolerance isn't some ridiculous orobouros of 100% inclusiveness. The LGBT community and their allies consist of an extremely diverse group of people and it's not "intolerance" to speak out against the people who aren't tolerating them.

Your dream scenario is what, exactly?

GAY DUDE: I tolerate everybody, but boy howdy I really want to marry the love of my life!

MORMON: Now hold on there, I may tolerate your right to not be beaten and tied naked to a fence post in Texas, but it wouldn't be very tolerant of MY belief that you just aren't as good as a heterosexual couple. Also God hates you, but hey, I'm not God, don't hold it against me when you're burning in hell because of your sinful lifestyle. Especially all that sex you're having out of wedlock. By the way I orchestrated a multi-million dollar campaign devoted to illustrating how much God hates your kind.

GAY DUDE: Right. Cheerio then. Well, I guess I'll get outta your here. Peace out!

It's completely insane. You obviously have no respect for the left-associated sentiment of "tolerance" and you likely believe the idea of tolerance to preclude any sort of attempt to argue against agents of intolerance who foster inequality, because it would be intolerant. That's not how it works. When one believes in tolerance and equality, naturally one must fight against institutionalized intolerance and inequality. How do you suppose this is done in a democracy? Well.... exactly like it's being done now.

Conservatives love to go on and on about personality responsibility and call up all the fictional welfare queen boogeymen straight out of the Reagan playbook, when all that's happening is this restaurant is losing money as a CONSEQUENCE of her actions. This consequence is being leveled in a peaceful, time-tested manner. If you donate to a political campaign or take hard-line stances on things, it should occur to you that it will piss a lot of people off and they won't want anything to do with you.

I wouldn't eat at any restaurant that donated to or endorsed prop 102 and I'd certainly be grateful for any protesters who informed me in case I was about to do just that.

Actions have consequences. Nobody bombed the restaurant. That's something religious fanatics do.

We'll talk about terrorism later when a fundie firebombs an AIDS support group.

[Arugula]

Gerald, I was curious about something:
"Attacking black churches would not be politically correct, even for aggressive in your face homosexuals."

Is it possible to be an aggressive in your face heterosexual?

[bing]

Nice, Arugula. You blow your father with that mouth?

[Arugula]

Okay, my last post, I promise. People should definitely get Christmas breaks from my sound and fury.

http://www.afa.net/Petitions/Issuedetail.asp?id=337

American Family Association threatening boycott Campbell soup over "supporting the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA."

What right do these Christians have to interfere with the business of decent hard-working Americans? These terrorists must have you outraged.

[Jim Torgeson]

I cannot even read your jibberish. You have completely missed the point.

I am not some neo-con religious fanatic. Period.

Try to imagine reversing the roles. Can you?

NO ONE SHOULD BE PERSECUTED FOR THEIR BELIEFS!

You obviously disagree with that.

You cannot force someone to change their beliefs because you don't like those beliefs. Maybe your ideal world has gay encounters as part of sensitivity training. I don't understand how you get so "free to think like me" and think you're open minded.

I also noticed you singled out Mormons. That's really a shame. I guess they should go to your church instead.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Quite simply, the legal and peaceful protest against an anti-gay marriage supporter is just pathetic. Do you think she's going to empathize with gays now or resent them more?

Take it the other way. White man supports desegregation in the early 60's. He has a restaurant. Protesters let his customers know he's a "n- lover." He goes out of business. Morally repugnant, but legal.

By the way, did you just give "compassion, empathy, and reasoning" to the religious right? Very strange structure there.

Get over your angry self. Decency will prevail.

[Arugula]

Just when I thought I was out...

a⋅nath⋅e⋅ma
   /əˈnæθəmə/ [uh-nath-uh-muh]
–noun, plural -mas.
1. a person or thing detested or loathed: That subject is anathema to him.
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.

Now bing, that would be gay incestuous necrophilia, a triple threat. If I were to confess to my hypothetical high crimes I'd be in a mess of trouble. Quit playing your clever mind games, I almost fell for your cunning trap.

I have a strange feeling that you were in the military; might I request that when you flip out and kill yourself, you don't take your family with you? Those stories always made me sad.

[bing]

Yawn.

[Jim Torgeson]

Me? No. Love every minute of life. Just wish more people would live and let live.

I'm sorry, I guess it looked strange because I saw "anthem."

I also agree that boycotting a soup sucks. Even more odd is the fact that the people hurt most are likely people who had nothing to do with supporting a "homosexual agenda."

Radicals and reactionaries both suck. They wish to force you into their mindset. Usually, there's not enough room in their tiny minds.

Acceptance and toleration (sounds ugly) has increased in this country dramatically. Working for a positive goal will do better for each cause.

[Joe G.]

While we're busy noting false equivalencies, let's note that boycotting a soup company is a bit different than finding out who contributed to a ballot amendment and targeting those individuals to submit or have their livelihood destroyed.

Likewise, there's a slight difference between working to convince others you've got a just cause, and seeking to subdue and humiliate them because they disagree as to the structure of marriage.

[Jim Torgeson]

Bravo, Joe, bravo!!!

[todd]

Just a follow up on the case The Klute mentioned:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/01/BAB9152HP7.DTL

[gina c]

I love this blog. I just found it, but what's with the militant left / gala people? Aren't they basically saying that any point of view but theirs is wrong?

Being a married bisexual female, I know what the moral right says, but give the poor ladya break (or at least her employees).