-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/el-coyote-boycott-mormon-managers-faith.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Like we miss Cholera
- The Hill: 'Cracks are beginning to show in Emanuel’s once-impregnable political armor'
- Gibbs just flashed crib sheet on palm at WH briefing, included 'eggs, milk, bread, hope and change.'
- Lieutenant Dan Choi back on military drill duty
- AP photo shows Palin cheated, read notes off her hand at Teabagger conference
The most perfect and simplest line in the article.
I'm sure that was first said by Torquemada.
Her explanation was lame... She bit the hand that fed her, and her mea cupla had to be better than that. Stop that she loves everyone, and never meant to hurt anyone... Hello?!?!? the restaurant is in the heart of the GLBT area of LA... she has royally pissed off the clientele, and I wouldn't be surprise in these tough economic times, that El Coyote can go out of business..
Because El Coyote is known more for their margaritas, I guess she loves alcohol as well? and probably most of her income comes from the liquor sold at the Restaurant....
I give the El Coyote Management trying with their donations, but they have a much bigger problem on their hands than they can possibly imagine.
After all, it's the Mammon Church...
This is sort of like if the Marjorie gave money to KKK and the restaurant is in Compton.
El Coyote is an easy target, because it is in easy reach, much like the protest of the LDS Temple on Santa Monica Blvd and Westwood was used because it is also in easy reach..
Personally the LDS should be boycotted for designing such Stalinesque Wedding Cakes of temples, they are so ugly... and I alway feel all the former Soviet architects must had taken up jobs designing Mormon Temples...
Write up the offending businesses on yelp.
That sign did not last long.
Bottom line: I saw diva crocodile tears. I saw no remorse. I saw no honoring of the TIME out of the LIVES of people who LOVE HER who gave it to her to make some good and she didn't. A boycott does not have to be about "hate." It could in fact be exactly what the person needs like so-called 'tough love.' Not "hate." I saw no "hate" there. Betrayal, anger, a real relationship sundering but not "hate." That word is oh - so - over used and mis-used in so many bogus arguments clouding the air over this subject.
I can understand why she did it, or why I think she did it, and still NEVER feel comfortable eating there again. EVER. [Unless something really changes to make me feel welcome.] Just that simple. I feel for the employees but GOOD (fucking) GOD it's a JOB. You can get another (fucking) job, you can't get your dignity or civil rights back once you start-a-bargaining them away can you?
If a family member did what that owner did, to me, I would boycott her ass quicker than a tachyon. With REAL remorse and understanding: reconciliation and an active relationship. It's really not rocket science, tachyon reference aside.
AND - "Blacklisting?" Puh-leeeeease. Don't insult those who were real victims of the 50's Red Scare. EVERY ONE OF THEM WAS INNOCENT, and very very few had any ties to the Communist Party, which as an AMERICAN it is perfectly OK to be a member of. The people on the 'list' of donors are actual donors of their real actual money as reported voluntarily to the Federal Government in a public record. They should be proud of their donations - I know I am proud of my donations to the Obama campaign, as it was made quite clear to me at the time of donation that there would be PUBLIC RECORD that I was a donor.
Those folk who contributed to the passage of Proposition 8 should be PROUD they PUBLICLY stood up for their despicable beliefs taking away my civil rights, and be men and women enough to stand up to the public humiliation and scorn that is their due.
If anyone disagrees I humbly submit there's probably passage left on planes and boats to North Korea, Mainland China, 'Myanmar,' the Sudan and Saudi Arabia where they'd find a more hospitable government for them and their views. If they can't stand the heat in America, get out of the kitchen eh?
If their church asked them to jump off of a cliff, would they?
If their church asked them to take up arms next, would they?
There is at least 1 crew member showing on the list of pro Prop 8 donors in NC...who knows how many others or racing execs also contributed under the names of wives, etc. God and country, indeed...
Seriously, what happens when some guy or gal who gave $100 loses his/her job and commits suicide or their family is made homeless? What if this person can't find another job? Martyrdom.
Plus, let us not forget how many of our gay brothers and sisters have taken their own lives already because of the position of the religious right.
However, I don't believe that targeting individual small donors is good policy. It opens up to much room for either martyrdom in this case or persecution.
Are we all forgeting Eric Rudolph, the psycho Right-wing, pseudo-Christian murderer who killed innocent people at the Atlanta Olympics and the gay bars? Think about what some nut jobs can do with data on individual who disagree with their opinions.
The Bush Administration had officials who discriminated against potential hires who had liberal backgrounds. Guess what? Now any conservative can look at opponents of Prop 8 and no whom not to hire.
Get it?
But political activity is PUBLIC. It has to be. If one cares enough one takes a stand, in public. it is a risk, but nothing worthwhile isn't. Each side of an issue makes themselves vulnerable to payback, that's the way it has always been and always will be and it is right and proper and good. Perhaps not in a civilization of whales or dogs or ungulates or sentient plants but that's the way it is with humans.
The Eric Rudolphs of the world horrible as they are, are actually quite rare. The amount of terrible stuff that could happen but does not is huge - and of course never makes news - is really good news. One can live in fear anyway but I think that's a choice.
OK, so first of all, it's the daughter of the owner. Target the daughter's business; the owner has nothing to do with this.
Second of all, WHY? This is looking like warfare... It's really bad press. I don't think it will have the intended effect with the statewide effort. I hope I'm wrong, but it just feels like vindictiveness, and it's EXACTLY THE KIND OF THING WE WERE UPSET AT YES ON 8 FOR DOING, namely blackmailing donors to the opposite campaign. If we do this, then we have to admit that what they were doing was OK, too, except that they were supporting bigotry instead of fighting against it. Pretty soon, this kind of passive bigotry of "I'm not against them; I just don't want to redefine 'marriage'" will turn into full-blown hate if this keeps happening. I don't know if that's better....
If the restaurant was in Irvine or Thousand Oaks, it wouldn't be a big deal. A boycott is symbolic to show GLBT economic power, and to express anger. Her explanation just didn't cut it, and if El Coyote wants to still have a business, they need to toss Marjorie overboard. It isn't just GLBT boycott, but the Entertainment Industry will boycott the place like the plague...
El Coyote shouldn't have this mea culpa lunch, they should had the owners hold a press conference, (CBS News is nearby, for example and) tell they shitcanned Marjorie, and explain their donations to fight Prop 8 in the courts.. Marjorie made it much worse by being condescending, and basically doing "I am sorry if I offended anyone" bullshit apology, in the same league as Trent Lott did when he caused an uproar.
i am all for voting for one's conscience, but there are consequences to one's conscience. Especially if a large part of one's income comes from suppressing the people that is against his or her morals. Why there is such a huge outrage is that GLBT are a big part of the restaurant's business, and an owner/management turns around donates to the yes on Prop 8 measure?!?!
As much as this is about economics, this is about appearances..
Actions have consequences. It's not "blackmail." Not liking a discriminatory thing someone did is not in any way "bigotry." Expressing hurt and anger appropriately is not "vindictive." And acting or not-actng out of fear of 'looking bad' is codependant crap.
But this IS a PR battle. We know what's right. We're well aware. And our job is to convince everyone else, or at least the people that matter, that we're right. I'm not sure if escalating the conflict to the family member of a bigoted person is the way to go here. We, and by extension gay people, will look awful, and the people who are being grossly discriminated against here will end up not having their equal rites, equal rights, and the respect of the nation at large.
And I agree that the public relations aspect is important for sure, it's just that it is kinda out of our control - when we are actors in it we are not also the director / producer / cameraman. We just have to act properly and let the chips fall where they may.
The state should offer civil partnerships to every couple - with restrictions on family members partnering. Then you go off and have a wedding if you prefer. You can have the partnership simply done at the clerk's office or you can run to the church of your choice and marry up like always. But EVERYONE's partnership is equal in the eyes of the law.
Until this establishment of religion is eliminated, we are going to continue to see heartbreaking situations like this.
Yes, I mean that the civil partnership would BE what the state calls marriage. They just stop calling it marriage and open it up to any two consenting adults not already family members.
Marriage is a legal term. It's also a sacrament in most religions, which causes a lot of confustion. If you were "married" in the church, but didn't sign the marriage licence/contract then you may be married before God, but you are not married according to the state.
So the civil partnership thing could work, but all 50 states would have to independently decide to do this. And can you hear the protests already from the exact people who are against us now about the state trying to take away their "marriage rights?" Then there is also the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia that deliniates "marriage" as a fundamental right, which may cause some issues.
The ultimate irony, of course, is that many churches already perform gay weddings, so there are gay couples who are married before God, but not legally.
You have a good point on current marriages. People already married by the state should be grandfathered in. All people currently "married" will remain "married," but no more after the law passes. That's a problem that has a sunset.
And since the real problem here is states honoring other states' contractual arrangements, it is a matter that could be changed by a federal constitutional amendment. If it passes the Congress, and then 2/3rds of state legislatures, it's the law of the land.
Which is why I also say that it will never happen, despite the fact that it will solve all the legal problems.
Another crazy option is the Supreme Court doing a landmark case and overturning marriage as an establishment issue, requiring all municipalities to only issue civil partnerships. Not likely, and if it did happen, the "activist court" loonies would explode.
It is not just the $100 donation, it is also the idea that Marjorie, as a "good" Mormon, likely tithes 10% of her income to that "church." That's money which, in part, has come from the gay community.
It's hard to believe that someone who has made the lion's share of their profits from gays, is quietly a member of a group that actively works against us. This is the height of hypocrisy, a complete betrayal and, in my opinion, not very ethical. A truly "religious" person would have a hard time doing such a thing. I will never set foot in the place again and that is my privilege.
To me it doesn't really matter. In her speech she states emphatically that she will remain faithful to her church - an organization that actively discriminates and seeks for religious reasons to take away the rights of those who are not members of the church. An organization with a very questionable history of polygamous marriage, that nevertheless feels comfortable imposing its views on non-believers. An organization that seeks to portray itself as mainstream. As a Mormon she has contributed 10% of her income to the church as is required of all members, much of that income earned from gay people. But that wasn't enough for her. She then voluntarily chose to contribute to Prop H8 to the detriment of her gay "friends" and patrons. She no doubt also took it upon herself to vote down their marriages and strip them of the right to marry. As I see it, her double lifestyle of anti-gay Mormon and pro-gay business person has caught up with her. She betrayed her gay friends and patrons, and was exposed. Yet in her teary speech she reaffirmed her intention to remain faithful to the Mormon religion.
So as I see it, she has made her choice. Now that it's out in the open she may discover that she can't have it both ways. And that is only right. She shouldn't have it both ways. If she believes that gay people's lifestyle is sinful and they are unworthy of the institution of matrimony, then she shouldn't associate with them, nor call them her friends, nor welcome them into her restaurant so that she can profit from them. But she did, and now those people know how she really feels about them. There is no reason in the world that those gay people are obligated to continue to call her friend or patronize her business. She may discover that unlike her, her clientele is honest and will tell her to her face what they really think of her. If she loses her business it will be her fault, and her fault alone.