AMERICAblog: Is your marriage worth more than a taco?
NWTRNR
· 11 months ago
Bravo John! What a great, spot-on commentary. Thank you
Mike_in_the_Tundra
· 11 months ago
She can say she loves gays, but her actions said otherwise. I can say that I have a new workout routine, but when I don't go to the gym, my actions say otherwise. Why would I patronize someone who does something to hurt me? That would be really dumb. So you can call it a boycott if you want, but I see it as a group of people behaving in a practical way.
Rob Mule
· 11 months ago
Aw, she loves THEM like everybody else BUT... The "but" always brings a tear to my eye, God love their half-brained non lateral minds. Was SHE self-identified as Mormon in her restaurant rambles prior to the donor lists being known? I'd wager she didn't proclaim her ministry...just another latter day pod person secreted within the population...
susano
· 11 months ago
That Margie Christoffersen article pissed me off . I appreciated your response, John. There seems to be plenty of press about the "victims" of the No on 8 campaign.I'd like to see PR about some real victims of the Yes on 8 legislation. Let's find a gay couple who have been together forever and have adopted disabled kids who are now being told that they're marriage is harmful to others. I'd pitch in to put their faces on TV commercials and in print.
BusyTimmy
· 11 months ago
I agree. How did this woman become the victim? "It's been her life, she said. And she can't stand that it's been taken away." What about what she's taken from the lives of gay couples in CA?
Webster
· 11 months ago
Oh, well, what do the equal rights of a few thousand people matter to her important life of running a crappy restaurant whose gay clientele have helped pay her bills for years? Oh, I must stop now and weep over her sad misfortune.
Surely, if the Mormon Church can pour over $20 million into California to take away people's rights, they can cough up enough bucks to keep Margie in magic underwear for a few years.
wmforr
· 11 months ago
Indeed. I was always told when I was younger that one of the virtues of Mormons was that they "took care of their own" who fell on hard times. Surely, if she changed the name to "El Coyote Restaurant of the Latter Day Saints" there would be enough Mormon customers in LA to keep her in business. And their allies the Catholics and Baptists and Evangelicals.
What is particularly grating in this and other articles is that, while they decry the unfairness of boycotts by the No on H8 people, that is precisely what the Yes on H8 people were threatening to do before the election to any business that supported No.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I think I read that Mormons make up only around 2% of the population in California. There are many more gays here than Mormons who were coming across the state line by the busload to support Prop 8. They really care about us Californians, god love 'em.
Personal Failure
· 11 months ago
Exactly. Maybe she should have thought of that BEFORE she supported Prop H8. Actions have consequences. I am free under the first amendment to spew all the antisemitic nonsense I want, but my Jewish boss is also free to fire my butt.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Yea, what "susano" said! Where are the damned articles about gays and lesbians and their kids who are treated like second class citizens? (crickets)
Joe
· 11 months ago
Margie Christoffersen does not fucking get it. She just doesn't. It infuriates me how this issue has been co-opted by religious fundamentalists and switched from gay rights to religious rights. Listen, when you have a religious belief, that is fine. But when you act on that belief to take away someone's rights, that's politics. And you will suffer the consequences politically. Which means - your ass will be boycotted. I live in Chicago, so there is nothing for me to do here - but I say L.A. area gays, find a new Mexican restaurant. I hear California has a bunch.
Matt
· 11 months ago
Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists also claimed a religious justification for their actions.
wmforr
· 11 months ago
And look how unfairly they were treated for acting on their faith.
RonNYC
· 11 months ago
Why the need to reach as far back as the Nazis? What about the 9/11 terrorists (and all other Islamist terrorists), who explicitly invoke their religion, Islam, to commit terror. We don't give them a pass just because they use religion. We also didn't give Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber, a pass because his motives were religious.
pdxprobert
· 11 months ago
The Nazi's operated from a postion of supremacy, much like the KKK and other groups that believe their way is the way of their creator... Ultimately, supremacy is based in religious,sociological and political and racial based ideologies.. all the day down to how our society is structured... Thats why we have Kings/Queens, Presidents, politicians, preachers, CEO's, mid level managers, supervisors, grandparents, parents, older vs younger siblings... ... those titles are all based on a belief in a supremacy... Dominance is another way of looking at it........hence, the Dominionists movement...
Webster
· 11 months ago
It's astounding to me that Margie still doesn't get it. Now she's just milking it for all it's worth. I call "crocodile tears" at this point. If there aren't enough Mormons to come to rescue the restaurant, well, then, Margie, too effing bad. Boo hoo.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
You're quite right. But to these folks that requires an awful lot of thinking. To them, voting is good, voting according to your beliefs is good, contributing to your church is good, and contributing to a political cause approved by your church is good. So she was being good. How was she supposed to know that anybody would get hurt? Nobody told her. You have to tell her, because thinking is something that is usually done for her by someone else.
AngelaChanning
· 11 months ago
I think the higher level of anger and betrayal is clearly because the patrons thought of Margie and the Restaurant as an ally and supporter. To suddenly find out that someone you thought was on your side but really isn't can evoke very hard feelings. It is not like the place was a Mormon hangout. Speaking of which, if little MIss Margie was so devout, why was she managing a place that sold alcohol? John is right, people pick and choose which issues they like to shroud in their faith.
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
You are so right! Its how my Baptist Republican side of my family operates. They absolutely pick and choose... when it serves them to be bigots - they are bigots and uptight. When it serves them to ignore any other Christian teaching then their God has the "grace" to ignore their particular sin. For instance, divorce and screwing around while married is a very popular sport on that side of the family.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Well, it depends on which Jesus you believe in. According to Mark 10:2-12 there are no valid grounds for divorce. "And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him...And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
But Matthew 5:31-32 tells us that Jesus says divorce is ok if she cheats. "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Now Saint Paul, the guy who only ever met Jesus in a vision after falling off a horse, was a little looser. He said it was ok to divorce your spouse and get remarried as long as the one you divorced was not a believer. So your marriage was real, unless your spouse was an unbeliever, in which case they were right.
I know, I know. Saint Paul had the vision first, and then fell off his horse. But honestly, what was a guy who was prone to visions doing on a horse in the first place?
Upland_Oddball
· 11 months ago
Margie and Steve Lopez are just dense in the head on this matter. What Margie did was tantamount to what the previous management of Barney's Beanery did when years ago they posted a visible sign at the door saying something to the effect of "Faggots, stay out!" As long as that sign remained up, gays avoided the place like a plague, and no one who had any commonsense questioned why? Margie's public support of Prop 8 is another Barney Beanery sign. Until she does the eqivilent of taking it down, she shouldn't be surprised and shouldn't be shedding crocodile tears.
wmforr
· 11 months ago
For those of you who don't realize the full implication of this, the Mormons are not supposed to drink alcohol or even caffein, much less smoke, because the body is "a temple of the Holy Ghost."
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
It's odd about the smoking thing, because the Holy Ghost just loves burnt offerings.
existenz
· 11 months ago
She isn't just a "hostess", who are actually among the lowest paid employees at a restaurant. She is a manager, and the daughter of the owner.
And yes, I read this column yesterday and thought it was pretty ridiculous. So what if her business loses money? What about the gay couples who have lost civil rights? Are they supposed to keep going to her restaurant so that her feelings aren't hurt?
judybrowni
· 11 months ago
And she owns 30% of the restaurant.
So that means she's also funnelling 10% of her profits in a restaurant, with a large gay following, to the Mormon Church.
No surprise that gay customers don't want their money directly funnelled to those bigots.
As a side note, although I live in L.A., I haven't been to El Coyote for 20 years -- for a reason. The food was dreadful! (And from what I've read on restaurant review sites, it hasn't changed any.)
Enormous watered-down Margaritas, and a tacky, ironic, ambiance were it's calling card -- you'd need to be hammered to eat that food, the worst Mexican in L.A.
Taco Bell is better (and cleaner!)
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
"well God made me write this post."
Oh, that is PERFECT! YES!!!
My G-d tells me that Mormons are not true Christians! My G-d tells me Catholics, who hate gays, are bigots! WE CAN ALL PLAY THAT GAME!
Great post, John.
Personal Failure
· 11 months ago
really, can I start murdering people and saying that god told me to do it? Leviticus clearly states that adulterers must die, after all.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
yup, that's totally permissible.
in fact, if you have unmarried daughters... feel free to sleep with them so they can have children.
just stay away from shellfish.
Personal Failure
· 11 months ago
yes! Lev 9-11! god hates teh shrimp
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
I wonder what God thinks of the practice of 'shrimping'??
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Technically shrimping is not an abomination as long as you don't touch the shrimp. And of course you'd better not be wearing cotton/poly blend or working Saturdays.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Well, yes Lot's daughters slept with him and had kids as a result according to Genesis 19:31-36, but it's ok because Lot was drunk two nights in a row and said he couldn't remember a thing.
And let's see. Cain killed his brother Abel and then went east and married a woman who had to be his sister. I mean, Cain's parents Adam and Eve were the first humans, so who else could his wife be but his sister? So I guess it was ok.
Then there was Abraham who married his half sister Sara in Ur. Then the King of Gerara took Sara from Abraham because he wanted her to be one of his wives. So God got pissed and sent the king a dream to tell him that he would be destroyed for taking a woman who already had a husband. That means God approved of Abraham marrying his half sister. Well, the king took the hint and sent Sara back to Abraham, and they lived happily ever after until she died at the age of 127. Then he was a widower for the next 38 years until his death at the age of 175. So that tells us two things. God approves of brother/half-sister marriages, and Abraham was able to afford the very best health coverage.
And Abraham's brother Nachor married his niece Melcha if you look closely at Genesis 11:26-29.
And Moses had a bit of a skeleton in his family closet according to Exodus 6:19-20. His mother Jochabed (don't you just love that name?) was his father's sister. So Moses's mother was his Aunt. And I guess that makes his brother Aaron his cousin. Is it any wonder Moses saw visions?
LowKey
· 11 months ago
ANd slavery is OK, as long as your slave is from another country.
I wonder how much a nice Canadian would run me.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Sorry, LowKey, but we are forbidden to purchase slaves unless they are from a "neighboring" country. We must be very clear about this. Canadians may only be owned by Americans. If we open up the Canadian slave trade to the whole world, eventually there will be a shortage of Canadians, and their price will go sky high. And keep in mind that if you sleep with a female slave, she must be beaten, not killed. Of course, if the slave is a guy you must both be killed. Sorry. Here are the applicable passages from the word of God:
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; They shall not be put to death, because she was not free."
Leviticus 20: 13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
now I know why I was never interested in owning slaves... too many damned rules!
or rules that could damn you...
either way... too much hassle, better to make millions in the rising stock market , become an overpaid CEO somewhere, and pay the workers little to nothing for working for you.
that's the 'Murrikan way!
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
So true! But you know, I was thinking. Why can't a Greenlander own a Canadian? I know it gets difficult to apply Leviticus to the modern world, but it is the word of God, after all. Technically Canada is a neighbor of Greenland. And if Greenlanders can own Canadians, what about the Danes? Does Denmark still own Greenland? If so, then Danes should be able to own Canadians too. Oh, wait. Greenland became independent when the Nazi's invaded Denmark. So any Canadian slaves living in Denmark should technically have been set free on April 9, 1940. If they were freed, then that should have been permanent. But if they weren't set free, then they should have been paid for whatever work they performed between 1940 and 1946 when the Greenlandic Parliament decided to remain Danish and they became slaves again. From 1953 to1979 things got a bit trickier because Denmark granted Greenland home rule. That would seem to bolster the argument that Canadian slaves owned by Danes should at least receive some token pay for their labors. The fact that Queen Margrethe II remains the head of state in Greenland does bolster Danish slave owner's claims, but Greenland's withdrawal from the European Economic Community over fishing disputes would seem to suggest that slave ownership is ok as long as you don't force them to work. Sometimes it gets really difficult to apply Bronze Age laws to the modern era, but at least with the gay issue things are much clearer. It's a sin, and we're just lucky that most countries don't execute us any more.
JamesR
· 11 months ago
Chertoff contracted out for Mexican slaves to do his lawn. They are much more economical in these belt tightening times, even if you make $180K a year. Of all the neighboring countries of the US and it's territories (Marshall Islands excepted) Mexicans are by far the better buy. - Hey if it's good enough for Homeland Security -
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Oh my gosh, James. I forgot about our territories. Thank you for pointing that out. That greatly expands our slave supply. And as Sarah P pointed out, Russia is our neighbor as well. We really don't need the Canadians after all.
Tom
· 11 months ago
I could not agree with you more, and you stated this so well. I/we/you are not going to let this issue fade away without us getting everything that everyone else has or can have. That day is over, and when we elected Barack we entered a new millenium. T
Homer Simpson
· 11 months ago
What kind of taco?
John Aravosis
· 11 months ago
Mmm.... hamburgers...
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
THIS IS ONE OF THE most important, incredible best posts on Americablog! Bravo, John!!! Bravo!!!
This is so incredibly important. No one has said this, and in such a well thought out logical way. You have totally wrecked the Christian Bigot Trump Card with this argument. Excellent... standing ovation!
Wes
· 11 months ago
I agree. I don't like to play favorites, but this post of John's really is exceptional. I hope it goes viral.
Fred Phelps and Peter LaBarbera claim themselves above reproach for atrocious behavior and profoundly offensive ideology (e.g., LaBarbera wants all anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation rescinded) because of the God Says So/It's in the Bible and Thus Irrefutable/No Questioning Allowed Trump Card.
It's a scoundrel's refuge, and the allowance given (undeservedly) to such scoundrels is getting less and less (see Jon Stewart's recent interview of Mike Huckabee).
John, could you convert this into an LA Times op-ed? At the very least Steve Lopez needs to read it, and carefully so.
bluestockton
· 11 months ago
The trouble with trying to vote as you're told to by the Catholic bishops and the evangelical windbags like Falwell and Robertson is that there's not much that the Catholics and the evangelicals agree on. Most evangelical denominations think that even if Catholics are on the "right" side of abortion, gay rights, and stem-cell research, they're going to hell anyway.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I like to think about what the Catholics and the Evangelicals do agree upon, and what it says about their faith. They believe that Christ was the son of God, born of a virgin on December 25th, etc. etc. etc. This and 200 other basic articles of their faith were lifted directly from the Indo-Persian god Mithra and the Egyptian god Horus. The whole Christian myth is based upon earlier myths. And as far as I'm concerned, they're all free to believe whatever they want. Just don't force that nonsense upon anyone else. We're not all believers.
Is that El Coyote on Beverly? Jeez that place was always packed. I never even tried to go in there it looked so jammed. I guess it will be easy to get a table now. I'm joking!
John Aravosis
· 11 months ago
That's the one. Pretty soon it won't be safe for bigots anywhere in America. :-(
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
I understand bush and cheney have HUGE real estate holdings in Paraguay...
just sayin...
Older_Wiser
· 11 months ago
Empty tables there The food was only so-so Gays boycotting win
FunMe
· 11 months ago
I used to go there a lot "back in the day" but as a latino, once I found out a lot of their food was not natural (e.g., canned food) I decided it was not my thing.
The waitress dresses are a hoot though!
Scooter Hussein in Brooklyn
· 11 months ago
Righteous anger John. Thank you!
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
"but... but... we've got gay people working here." - El Coyote employee #12
wmforr
· 11 months ago
Yes, and a lot of racists have, what's the word? Negroes? working for them. Just proves the entire South was extremely tolerant before the Civil War.
nicho
· 11 months ago
Here's the email I sent to the columnist yesterday:
Your semi-sob sister piece on Ms. Christofferson is baffling. Is your point that gay people should suck it up and continue to put money into the hands of people who will use it against them? That would be just stupid.
It's not a question of "fairness," as you seem to suggest. Ms. Christofferson is free to donate money to any cause she wants -- and I reserve the right to eat where I choose. I choose to give my money to people who won't use it against me. There are hundreds of restaurants in town, and I can't eat in them all. So, I have to make a choice. To even suggest that I should ignore people who support me and fund people who are inimical to my rights is ludicrous.
Imagine if El Coyote's crowd had been predominantly Jewish and it came to light that managers there were helping to fund the PLO or Hamas. Would you advocate that the Jews still patronize the place out of some sense of fairness? That would get you laughed out of town -- or worse.
I'm really fed up with the anti-gay rights crowd playing the tearful "victim" card. Actions have consequences. Fund an effort to take my rights away and I won't do business with you. That's just good sense. What really happened is that the people who funded Prop H8 didn't realize that their names would be made public. Too many people thought they could promote hate in secret and are now squirming when the light shines on them.
I have advocated that the No on H8 people should go one step further and do what they did in Massachusetts -- publish the names of everyone who signed the petitions to put the matter on the ballot. After all, if I have a right to know that there is a child molester in my neighborhood, I have a right to know if my neighbor is a homophobe.
In Massachusetts, you could hear the shrieking from one end of the state to the other, as the homophobes were exposed, claiming their "privacy" was violated. They didn't realize they were signing a public record. It also showed that many of the signatures on the petitions were put there fraudulently.
And, for the record, Ms. Christofferson's declaration that she likes gay people, but doesn't think they should have full civil rights is laughable -- right up there with "Some of my best friends are black, but I don't think they should marry white people."
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I REALLY like your e-mail. Thank you!
Personal Failure
· 11 months ago
I have been posting this same theme at least twice a week, but not nearly as skillfully as you just have. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. No, my intolerance doesn't begin to match theirs. Get over it.!
LLDEM
· 11 months ago
John, I live here in LA and saw Steve Lopez's article yesterday. Mostly I agree with Steve. He seems to be a fairly level headed guy and he even opposed Prop 8. But I had to send him this letter in response to his opine.
Consequences \ˈkän(t)-sə-ˌkwen(t)s, -kwən(t)s 1: a conclusion derived through logic : inference2: something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions <the economic consequences of the war> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Conse...
Steve,
As a real fan of your column, I had to take this time to write you regarding your article this morning on Margie Christoffersen of El Cayote in Hollywood.
The definition above is to remind you that as adults, we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, plain and simple. Mrs, Christoffersen had what you described as a friendly relationship with the gay community and she even went so far as to say, "I love them like everybody else." The sad thing is, she didn't love them as much as she loved her religion. When she made that donation, she betrayed all those people that she claimed to love so much. The consequence of this action was understandable and not undeserved. Her former customers felt betrayed. I'm all for making a stand on principal and Mrs Christoffersen has every right express her opinion, but when you throw your friends "under the bus", you have to expect that there will be ramifications. Further, even if there were no "friendship" to speak of, why would anyone expect the gay community to continue to spend money in an establishment who's management clearly does not support them. Have you forgotten the history of Barney's Beanery already?
In the ensuing days, Mrs, Christoffersen had the opportunity to make amends to her "friends" by changing her stance on Prop 8 and chose not to. Again, Mrs. Christoffersen will have to accept responsibility for the consequences of her action as will the unfortunate employees (some of whom are gay) still in her employ.
The backlash she feels does not make her former customers anything more than human and to play her as some sort of victim in all of this really gives her a pass on adult responsibility. Stand up for your ideals, I say, but know going in that words and actions matter very much - especially to your friends - and that no matter what decisions you make today, there will be consequences.
Most Sincerely
Upland_Oddball
· 11 months ago
John, I just want to add that the reason why we cannot accept relgious-based ratiionales for public decisons that could affect other individuals is fundamentall. We cannot allow religious rationales to have public, political standing because by nature, such rationales cannot be standardized. Individuals are free to make personal decisoins based on whatever tradtion they chose to follow. If a person chooses to drink urine as a Ayervedic tonic, he or she is free to do so. But that person cannot demand that a pulbic school board mandate that other people's children must follow suit.
Public decisons must be based on a common set of principles and a common approach. Since the days of the Founders, we have agreed that this public approach must be grounded on fact-based aguments and rationales that are rationally derived, and scientifically and empirically provable. In contrast, religious rationales at best only overlap occasionally, otherwise, they generally vary. If we allow fundamentalist Christian rationales to prevail, in fairness, what is to prevent Hindu, Muslim, or other religious traditions from demanding an equal standing? How can we ever find a common law to live under if we must now reconcile a multitude of religious sensibilities? The likely result is create in law a multitude of religious opt-outs.
Conservatives are desperate nowadays to carve out a public space for allowing individual religous standards to hold sway in matters involving conflicts with the rights of others. In the case of gays, as in many other cases, they have lost the fact-based, scientific, and empirical arugment and know it. Discrmination against gays cannot be legitimately defended on the commonly accepted grounds our tradition has set down. Therefore, a back-door to let in a whole set of new arguments is being demanded. We must fight this demand, and keep that door shut.
wmforr
· 11 months ago
Actually, since there are more and more churches that DO solemnize same-sex marriages, it could be claimed that Yes on H8 was a violation of their freedom of religion. That's a much better case than saying peaceful protests are a violation.
Of course the religious spokespeople and the press never seem to make the distinciton between being, say anti-Catholic or anti-Mormon and persecution of members of those religions.
Indigo
· 11 months ago
John, I thot you liked "enchiladas." Only a str8t man would eat a "taco." Snicker-snort.
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
not only a str8t man, honey... ;)
nicho
· 11 months ago
I had to google that reference -- now, I'll never be able to eat tacos again. Ewwwwww.
Personal Failure
· 11 months ago
what's wrong with the taco? mine is quite nice.
tlsintx
· 11 months ago
viva la taco!!!
Indigo
· 11 months ago
Oh my! pre-Stonewall code is nearly dead. I'm beginning to feel like I'm on a one-man campaign to preserve a nearly lost dialect. I'm glad you found a reference that 'splained. Just to clarify, Lesbians (and str8t men) eat "tacos". Gay men eat "enchiladas." Get it? [apoloiges to tisintx ] ;)
Indigo
· 11 months ago
Yup. Sorry See clarification to nicho.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 11 months ago
the most disengenuous line in the article for me was: "But I didn't like what I was hearing about the vilification of Margie Christoffersen and others in California being targeted for the crime of voting their conscience."
VOTING their conscience?? VOTING??
no, voting is private and everyone is entitled their vote... this wasn't a VOTE, this was an ACTIVE DONATION to a proposition to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED.
okay, given that this proposition has created a precedent in California that the majority can vote on the rights of the minority... how about gathering signatures to come up with a proposition that defines mormonism as a cult and strips it of its tax exempt status in California?
how would the mormon church feel if THAT made the ballot?
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I can guarantee you how they would feel if that made the ballot. They would see themselves as the victims, just as they see themselves as the victims right now.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who voted for Prop 8 who are genuinely shocked at the reaction. For them it has always been God and Country. T hey give their money to their churches, they go to the polls and vote their beliefs, and that has always seemed a good thing to them. I'm sure many a perfectly nice person never had to think before about either their money, their vote or their church doing something bad. And suddenly they are being confronted with a backlash for doing what they have always considered to be perfectly American apple pie. Probably most will see themselves as being victimized, rather than think about what they, their money and their church has done. It's just easier that way.
I find it especially insidious because the author knows all the players involved. He should know the Lopez article presents a distorted view (the gay "mob" ... cops in riot gear?) that vilifies El Coyote's loyal gay customers, but he's still pimping Lopez's hacktacular apologia for bigotry.
And don't ya just love how Lopez says gays "mobbed" El Coyote every Thursday night? Like we're in there screaming "Attica! Attica! Attica!" every gay night.
judybrowni
· 11 months ago
A telling paragraph from that piece:
"El Coyote has given thousands of dollars over the last few weeks to GLBT causes and charities. The restaurant is now -- believe it or not -- being boycotted by various right-wing groups for doing so. Mormon wards as far away as San Diego have sent groups to the restaurant in support of the restaurant's supposedly "anti-gay" policies. But of course, those Mormon's ain't drinking margaritas. "
Oh, so the religious right can, and does, boycott, hmmmmm? Mormons are being bussed in to support, but they don't drink the Margaritas -- that Margie served hypocritically by the liquid ton to gays. Soooo it's okay for the Mormons to boycott Margaritas, and the Religious Right to boycott a restaurant, but those stripped of their rights -- nope.
To boycott is as American as the Boston Tea Party -- unless you're gay, according to the media. Then you're ordered to suck up the Margaritas of hate.
Older_Wiser
· 11 months ago
"You see, poor Margie loves the gays."
"Poor Margie" loved gay money...money is at the root of the LDS, you can read about it in their history.
A sales pitch is a sales pitch where I come from. So Margie got a few laughs from people she basically disdained and hated...even serving alcohol (and probably coffee and tea, too) which is against her own religion.
And you expected her to be a real friend when she can't even respect her own religious beliefs for the sake of a buck?
Look--when people finally figured out that black folks had some money to spend and places of business finally desegregated due to court orders, they were welcomed, too, but still hated, even to this day. "Don't trust whitey" wasn't just a phrase.
Some things never change. Even now, I try to find out who the religious nuts are around here (and there are many) so I don't have to frequent their businesses. And I'm just an old white atheist...
Personal Failure
· 11 months ago
you do that, too? family members think i'm intolerant and crazy, but i refuse to give money to people who think i don't deserve to breathe. my money does say "in gay we trust" on the back, though . . .
Rob Mule
· 11 months ago
Gay business, as seller or buyer, is good business...and usually cash.
Glenn I
· 11 months ago
I know I wasn't the only one who felt deep deep hurt and shed tears over having my marriage declared illegal/invalid/unrecognized by the sweet sensitive Margies of the world. Like you, John, I was unable to muster sympathy for Margie and her poor widdle feelings. This doesn't mean I didn't feel pity for her, as one will feel pity even for the murderer as he walks to the gallows.
Personal Failure
· 11 months ago
I can't even imagine, glenn. I don't even live in Cali, I sure as hell wouldn't have voted for Prop H8, but I am sorry. We all deserve better.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Bravo John!! Beautifully written. Poor Margie sure is able to cry when it affects her life. I wonder then how severe a breakdown she would experience if her marriage were to suddenly be revoked. I wonder how she would handle receiving the deepest insult from the majority of her fellow Californians who deem her unworthy to ever be married. Sorry, Margie, but this is one of the very few good things to come out of the Prop 8 debacle. People who thought they were just "following their religious faith" suddenly, perhaps for the first time, realize that their actions impact the lives of others, and may even have consequences for themselves.
FunMe
· 11 months ago
Isn't it funny, you do something that affects other's lives, then WHAM! it hits you right back affecting your own life.
Hope this is a wake-up call to anyone who considers disciminating and thinking there will be no backlash.
Good post John. Nice reponse Ritorna
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Thanks, FunMe. Or should I address you as FunYou?
Joe B.
· 11 months ago
Great comment Ritorna
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Another good example is Mel Gibson's homophobia versus his anti-Semitism. Remember how Gibson could say the most vile disgusting things about the LGBT community and it was somehow "okay" because he was simply being a "good Catholic?" But, when he started spewing about his hateful anti-Semitism, he still has not recovered? Me smell a double standard! When is Mel going to be able to return to his glory days? I mean, it was his religion that made him say the things he said about the Jews, right?
Rob Mule
· 11 months ago
Make him star in a Freddie Mercury biopic...
cowboyneok
· 11 months ago
Ya know... I wouldn't doubt he would do something like that. He is probably going to try to do a gay Holocaust movie next.
The Tim Channel
· 11 months ago
Already been done. Paragraph 175.
Enjoy.
wmforr
· 11 months ago
Remeber when Tom Sellek sued the Enquirer for saying he was gay (I personally thought someone had him confused with Joel Crothers, who was his spitting image), and he was called anti-gay? Well, first his reply was "I'm married to a woman, I would have sued them if they said I had a heterosexual affair."
But then he played gay in "In and Out". And no, I don't think he ran to the press telling them kissing Kevin Klein was the hardest thing he ever had to do.
wmforr
· 11 months ago
I recall years ago when Mel was asked about rumors that he was gay, and he replied, "I'm not gay. Gays take it up the ass."
"So," I thought, "Mel only takes it in the mouth?"
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
LOLolololol!! It's possible he's a top, and therefore not gay.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
Yep. But Gibson kind of let the Jews off the hook for killing Christ when he portrayed Herod's court as a bunch of flamers. The makeup for that scene alone must have pushed his film way over budget.
Joe B.
· 11 months ago
cowboyneok: Thank you for mentioning this. Mel Gibson should have lost his career earlier than he did, because his gay hating stuff.
Eddie Murphy should have lost his career, too.
If these may seem like harsh things to say, it's a symptom of people, like Steve Lopez, thinking that hatred of gay people is not something we should be taking all that seriously.
Joe B.
· 11 months ago
typo, sorry: because OF his gay hating stuff
Steve
· 11 months ago
If religion justifies actions, then it qualifies Osama Bib-Laden's actions on 9.11. Lay that on those religious dick wads. Steve
Ken Clark
· 11 months ago
Their response to that argument would be but my religion is better than their religion.
cali techie
· 11 months ago
Not quite sure how since both Christians and Muslims (and the Jews) all worship the God of Abraham. At their core their religions are the same. The only difference is in the implementation.
aquarius2
· 11 months ago
Talk about crimes against humanity, this article really makes you wonder what the hell is wrong with people. Crimes against GBLT were up in 2007 and probably will be higher in 2008
I hope she learns that when you lay down with dogs (or give them money), you might wake up with fleas.
RIPWAMU
· 11 months ago
Or get bit by the hand that feeds you
scottinsf
· 11 months ago
In somewhat related news I thought people might be interested in:
Remember the folks that took out the full page ad in the NYT accusing gays and lesbians of being terrorists? One of the people with their name attached to that was a guy named Richard Cizik. Well, another group took out a full page ad in the Salt Lake City Tribune pointing out, among other things, that Mr. Cizik thinks the mormon church is a cult. Now it appears Dick has resigned from being a vice-president at the National Association of Evangelicals. Hmmm........
From wikipedia: "On December 11, 2008, Cizik gave his resignation from his position with NAE after a December 2 radio broadcast of NPR's Fresh Air in which he voiced support for same-sex civil unions."
Religion is no shield for rank bigotry and as far as I am concerned she brought that on herself. . I've stopped shopping at places for the same reason and I see no reason not to encourage others to do the same. Don't give money to your enemies.
The only people I do feel a bit for are the gay employees. Its a tough job market out there.
Johnny
· 11 months ago
Aww boo-fkin-hoo! My parents haven't spoken to me in 20 years because their God demands I be shunned before I burn for eternity in Hell. So if people want to take away the fag's rights because God demands it, let them. Then let's see if they can get their Buybulls to cough up some cash when the fag's take their money elsewhere.
TampaZeke
· 11 months ago
John, I'm SO glad you wrote this. My blood was boiling when I read the article in the LA Times yesterday. They made Margorie out to be such an innocent victim of those hateful, bullying gays. I sent an email to the author pointing out all of the points that he failed to include in his hit piece. For example, I asked him why he, and everyone else, calls Margories "gift" to support taking away gay people's rights her right to "freedom of speech" through her PERSONAL pocketbook whereas when gay people, the victims of the Proposition she supported with he pocketbook decide to excercise THEIR freedom of speech with THEIR pocketbooks it's made to seem like bullying or an act of terrorism.
I've never understood the thinking of those who think working to pass a discriminatory law is a celebrated act of freedom of speech but when the person who is on the receiving end of that discriminatory law decides to not give his/her money to that person or their business it's condemned as petty and shameful.
I noticed that he failed to mention the threatening letter that the Pro Prop 8 people sent out to business owners who supported No on 8 threatening them if they didn't donate money to the Pro 8 side. He failed to mention the religious boycotts of Disney, Ford, Microsoft and countless other big companies for having the audacit to be supportive of their gay employees or the boycott of smaller companies simply because they are owned by a gay person. And he also failed to mention that 99.9% of the time gay people only go after the churches AFTER they have attacked us. We are ALWAYS in a defensive position against the churches. We have NEVER been the one to fire the first shot and we have NEVER put anything on any ballot to take away religious people's rights to their religious BELIEFS. We do take a stand when they try to turn THEIR beliefs into OUR LAWS.
Yeah, it's always those poor Christians/Mormons that are on the receiving end of bullying and hate.
RIPWAMU
· 11 months ago
I think these idiots need a dictionary and a lesson about what terrorism really is. So soon they forget.
gwyneth
· 11 months ago
My sentiments exactly, they've also forgotten about the Nazi's, the civil war, the civil rights movements back in the 60's. But, we're all supposed to buy that they are being persecuted because we won't let them take minority groups civil rights away without a protest and boycott. The main reason why their talking up the terrorism point is because of flour that was mailed. (in my opinion - by their own members to themselves, so that they could cry "terrorism") Yeah right! I'll believe that standing up for equal civil rights for all US Citizens is terrorism when hell freezes over!
mikeyDe
· 11 months ago
Is this really a story? Every day businesses are going under, banks have failed, people are losing their jobs and homes, homes and retirement funds have lost a third or more of their value. A taco stand in California losing 30% of their business is
not. a. big. deal.
Pick yourself up, Marjorie, and go on with your life with the certain knowledge that you will go to heaven and have your own personal fiefdom with lots of unwilling non-Mormons to push food on.
The Tim Channel
· 11 months ago
I don't even think the Nazi's were in power when Paragraph 175 was implemented, but you can be sure this is EXACTLY what the relignotards are PRAYING for. If only Sarah can lead them to the promised land.
Her Church in Wasilla burnt up. I expose the possible perpetrator(s)
The whole "let's cry for the poor victims of the gay boycott" is driving me nuts. Would they have cried for the owners of the lunch counters that lost business because of the sit-ins and boycotts during the Civil Rights Movement? Well, yes, this crowd might have. "Poor" Marjorie- just following the tenets of her faith. They want the Bible? How about "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measures ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye?" It seems to me that all these so-called "Christians" do is judge others., and organize their own boycotts of anything they don't like. That's okay, but a boycott of any of them is not? Give me a break.
gwyneth
· 11 months ago
To answer your question, yes they would have cried. The Mormons in particularly would have cried (and probably did) a river of tears over the sit-ins and boycotts of the Civil Rights Movement. After all, they did teach that blacks bore the mark of cain clear up until about 1978 or so and did everything they could to stop interracial marriage.
But, it happened anyway. :) And, this will happen too when enough people get scared thinking about letting the Mormons define marriage - they've never been able to do so without infringing on other people's rights in the history of their existence and this is no exception. They infringed on a child's rights with their polygamy and now they want the Constitution to apply to ONLY them. Yeah, real Christian - they just don't get it!
Lucy
· 11 months ago
"Yeah, well God made me write this post."
PRICELESS!
Tom
· 11 months ago
My heart is breaking for that poor stupid bigot. Gimme a break. If that is what Steve Lopez calls journalism then he needs to go back to school.
Castillon J.
· 11 months ago
I'm so tired of bigots passing off their hatred as religious freedom! I have surprised quite a few people recently who tried to use that 'sanctity of marriage' bullshit on me coming right out and calling them bigots, too! I think this Prop 8 shit has finally hit a nerve similar to that of the Stonewall era and gays, like myself, who've taken the high road and turned the other cheek have had enough. Contrary to the views of most of these idiots, we are not all effemniate hair stylists and department store window decorators--we are doctors, lawyers, teachers, fire-fighters, policemen, etc., and we make a damn good living and it's also our damned right to spend our money where we see fit and right now I don't think anyone should be telling me I'm a bastard because I'm not spending my money at this bitch's place or any other business that supports racism or the Mormon cult! Don't like it, tough shit!
RIPWAMU
· 11 months ago
Thanks for going there John :-)
azvalu
· 11 months ago
Margie Christofferson eeds to grow up and learn to be an adult, accepting the consequences of her actions. Her "crocodile tears" over her lost customer base is not only unconvincing, it is hypocritical in the extreme: why should SHE be painted as the "victim" in this when her actions resulted in the denial of basic human rights and dignity to those she whines about "loving"? Why should we be at all concerned about HER supposed misery when her action may result in the REVERSAL of the existing marriages of her FORMER clientele. The boycott is a time-honored tradition in America as a visible part of political action. Cesar Chavez is spinning in his grave at the very thought of your sell-out attitude, Mr Lopez.
autoegocrat
· 11 months ago
I haven't visited AmericaBLOG in a long time, and now I really regret that.
What a great rant, John. I especially liked your side jab at the people who like to police public discussion of the Nazi regime.
John Aravosis
· 11 months ago
Well thanks :-)
Tony
· 11 months ago
It won't do any good but I had to send Mr. Lopez a letter. His inbox should be filled to overflowing with responses to that article!
Margie Christoffersen is well within her rights to contribute to any cause she believes in - that is the right of every American. She is, however, accountable for her actions as she is now discovering.
She claims to love gay people like everyone else and yet she has contributed money to, and presumably voted for, an amendment to take away their rights. If she had voted to overturn Loving vs. Virginia and repeal the rights of black to marry whites the outcry would have been just as severe if not more so. I fail to see the difference here - discrimination and bigotry is discrimination and bigotry.
Ms. Christoffersen is just like every other two-faced 'supporter' of gay people. She's more than willing to take advantage of us for labor, for income or anything else that fits her needs and will pretend to be 'supportive' all the while. That support ends, however, when her 'religion' tells her to do something that goes against us. At that point her 'friends' are expendable.
I feel badly for the staff of the restaurant who had nothing to do with her actions. I feel badly for the customers who used to think that she was their friend. I do not feel badly for Ms. Christoffersen or her family. As 'good Mormons' they are required to contribute a percentage of their income to the LDS on a weekly basis. Much of that money has, in turn, been used against us. This means that by supporting this restaurant the hard-earned money we pay for services rendered is in turn used to finance a war against us. This is unacceptable.
If, Mr. Lopez, the shoe were on the other foot and the LDS were attempting to take away the civil rights of Hispanic Americans or Immigrants would you continue to patronize this establishment and contribute to your own problems? Would you write an article that attempts to drum up support for the 'poor misunderstood woman'? I think we both know the answer would be no.
By contributing her money and placing her vote Ms. Christoffersen clearly stated her own protest. By protesting her restaurant and boycotting their services we have done the same. The difference is that we have chosen to make our protests in the light of day instead of trying to keep them covered up.
Ms. Christoffersen may not be, at heart, an evil person. She may not have thought about the ramifications of the contribution that she made, however by making that contribution in the name of 'religious belief' and placing that vote she has violated the trust of the gay community. We cannot, and will not, continue to support an establishment that would turn even a tiny bit of it's profits over to a religious group that would wage a war on our civil rights. We cannot, and will not, allow this affront to go unchallenged so that our supporters in the straight community will continue to unknowingly contribute to the religious war on gay people. Behavior such as this should to be brought out into the bright clear light of day for all to see and judge.
I will never set foot into the El Coyote again as long as it is under current ownership. Perhaps they can find enough support among the Pro Prop 8 crowd to keep themselves open.
citizen spot
· 11 months ago
Excellent post John! I don't know which is sadder, that Prop 8 passed, or that there are still people like Marjorie who can't think for themselves, and blindly follow church orders without any thought at the consequences. My gay dollars will never go to bigots.
okojo
· 11 months ago
This is more about idiocy and laziness than anything. El Coyote Restaurant, (which I have been to it, and it is known as the place that Sharon Tate and company had their last meal in 1969) is not even a good restaurant, it is just americanized Mexican food. However, it is right in middle of West LA, and down the street from West Hollywood and west of Fairfax and CBS/Viacom major studios for the West Coast.
The idiocy is Margie Christoffersen, given GLBT community is or was a big supporter of El Coyote, given it is more of a local hangout, and for her to donate money to the No on 8 campaign, is sort of economic suicide.
The laziness is GLBT community, protesting this place is sort of like taking baby from a candy. If they have cajones, they should protest Cavalry Church in Thousand Oaks or some of the really conservative organizations that are nestled in Southern California's countless suburbs.
The hypocrisy is also on Margie Christoffersen's part. If she is such a devout follower of the LDS, then most of her income from what El Coyote is renown for: Their Margaritas. Their Margaritas are what brings in the customers. So technically, Margie Christoffersen's income is "blood money" and Jose Cuervo indirectly funded the Prop 8 campaign.
Zeebeline
· 11 months ago
Learn to spell it: "cajones" are big boxes. "Cojones" is the term you're looking for.
Lazy, my ass. They took the low-hanging fruit first, and they took it big time. Sometimes, you have to get. People's. Attention. I'd say that it worked well...Hollywood-style.
okojo
· 11 months ago
oh come on... this is like beating up a piñata... I think a boycott of El Coyote is well deserved. This was a huge place for anyone in the Entertainment Industry, anyone working at the Pacific Design Center, any one who owned a shop in the area like Mark Jacob or a place on Melrose Ave. This was a very boneheaded move on someone who is part of management of El Coyote.. The Restaurant livelihood relies on GLBT and people working in the entertainment industry..
However, the fundamentalist live in the burbs and other counties like Orange and Ventura. They have non descript jobs and don't owned primo real estate on the west side of LA.
Taking down someone like Howard Ahmanson, who's company and himself and his partner gave I believed a million on Yes on 8 campaign.
One of the reason why No on 8 campaign lost was that they didn't do any outreach to the burbs. When the vote was 50/50 in LA county, a couple people didn't do their homework at the No on 8 campaign. The votes in LA County went 70/30 for Obama, and LA County is more of a moderate county compare to SF, Marin and San Mateo.
Greg
· 11 months ago
Since when is a consumer boycott an illegitimate way of applying political pressure? It's the bread and butter of many conservative religious movements (which mostly fail to achieve their goal). I guess the difference is that this particular business was so heavily invested in a gay customer base that it actually worked.
Egno_Ramis
· 11 months ago
Considering that the same people, more or less, would like all people named "Lopez" to kindly pick their greasy beany asses up and move south of the soon to be constructed border fence, I see a hint of irony in the writer's position. Eichmann just following conscience, sources say; Israel too sensitive about Final Solution, says Bush.
Ben Dover
· 11 months ago
Good ol' Marge is example personified of the vilest type of hate. She's a friend to your face, when she wants/needs our cash. But behind our backs she practices hatred. She is the type that will not draw a line between right and wrong. She threw her friends, associates, customers, business all away in order to practice her brand of hatred in an act the she believed would never, ever be revealed. And be of no consequence to her business bottom line. Good ol' Marge's failure to stand up for right and wrong, to draw that line in the sand, shows where her heart really lies. If she wouldn't draw a line now, would she at more blatant issues? Housing? Jobs? Healthcare?
Or would she be able to draw a line at a railhead during a "selection" process?
Somehow I doubt that good ol' Marge would be able to draw a line even there.
Fight the Mormon cult at each and every turn! As if your very life depended upon it.
Queer Canuck
· 11 months ago
Yes, exactly. It reminds me of a saying I heard:
What's the definition of a fag?
It's a gay man who just left the room.
IAmATVJunkie
· 11 months ago
As long as money translates to free speech, I have absolutely no problem taking the money out of the hands of the people who are using it to take away my civil rights.
And if Margie (who I've been served by, many times over the years and especially when I was working at CBS) has a problem with that, that's just too fucking bad.
Too. Fucking. Bad.
todd
· 11 months ago
John, I wrote a letter to the editor of the LA Times yesterday, with precisely this argument: i.e. would its author feel the same if Chritoffer ran a Jewish deli or catered to the black community but financially supported causes directly against her customer base.
Switching out gays for blacks/Jews really shows the fallacy of the argument.
scottinsf
· 11 months ago
Nothing to add to this discussion except that for Mexican food in LA I think La Golondrina down on Olvera Street isn't bad. Yeah, you LA people probably consider it a tourist hangout or something but I actually think the food is OK.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I hope La Golondrina doesn't serve pork or shellfish. Leviticus says no.
mauro7inf
· 11 months ago
Hey, you forgot the terrorists!
Both the domestic, abortion-clinic-bombing types and the political and radical Islamic types are told to murder people by God. Charles Guiteau was told to kill President Garfield by God. But God was acquitted and Charlie committed until he should hang. (:
In any case, I think terrorists are a stronger example than Nazis in this case, given that Nazis were motivated more by a kind of social Darwinism than religion. They wanted a pure "Aryan" world and "living space" for their "race"; divine justification was more like incidental. Radical Islamic terrorists are much more directly told to kill by God (though Osama bin Laden's statements are mostly political rather than religious, the individual suicide bombers are religion-driven).
You know, sometimes I wonder at the level of protection that religion gets. Somehow, if what you think or act can be filed under "religion", you get special exemptions. If I decided that I don't eat potatoes or peppers, if I'm somehow thrown in jail, I'll be made to eat them anyway, but if I decided instead that I don't eat pork or mix meat and milk because I adhere to kashrut, they'll have special kosher meals for me. How is one more of a decision than the other? Things called "religion" get special treatment. As an atheist Jew, this bothers me on some levels.
mikeyDe
· 11 months ago
Why is she crying in the first place? She got exactly what her church told her she wanted and it only cost her $100. She should be turning somersaults.
frank
· 11 months ago
It was heartwarming seeing the chickens fight back against El coyote. No sympathy for margie. Say no to Burritos, Nachos, Chi Chi Larue mangas and demand to taste the sweet ass Margarita before purchase. Our Pesos talk!
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
A Kosher taco is worth more in the eyes of God than a gay marriage. But if the cheese comes into contact with the beef, then the taco is unclean and must not be eaten, and the stove must be replaced. The cheese may be eaten separately, but it must be served on a separate plate that is washed in a separate dishpan or separate dishwasher that never comes into contact with anything that has touched beef. If you have only one dishwasher you may wash both beef and dairy dishes in separate loads, provided you run the dishwasher once between the two loads. Care must also be taken to use separate utensils and spoon rests. Separate towels and pot holders must be used as well, but those items may be laundered together. The cheese can not be eaten within three to six hours of eating the beef, depending on how fatty the beef was, and which is eaten first. If the cheese is eaten first, one need only rinse one's mouth and eat a neutral solid like bread, unless the dairy product in question is of a type that tends to stick in the mouth. In that case one must abstain from eating beef for at least six hours. And of course oral sex is completely out of the question.
Only a pork taco is equal to a gay marriage because both are an abomination.
boytokyo
· 11 months ago
lmfaso!
spentaculor!
gwyneth
· 11 months ago
I enjoy reading all of your posts, I'm just "bitchy" but you somehow manage to be quite comical while making very good points.
ChrisSF
· 11 months ago
Has anyone noticed that the trolls seem to have disappeared from these threads? I guess the LDS hierarchy has decided it's not worth it and stopped ordering people to post their talking points on this site.
gwyneth
· 11 months ago
They come out afterwards when the threads are in archives, I've been going back and forth with them by myself against their ridiculous talking points, their favorite one is bringing up all these unsubstantiated claims they have about their stupid powder mailings and then they follow it up by saying, "violence has never gotten anyone anywhere when it comes to human rights".
Does the Mormon Church ban most history books? It seems like they do because they so piously and rigorously reject all the historical facts that even a third grader would know.
Anyway, check your email that you have your comments going to because as I said, they wait until they think no one is paying attention to propagandize these threads with their nonsense.
agentX
· 11 months ago
Damn. So the LA Times writer Mr. Lopez wants me to feel sorry for the schmuck because she donated to a group that went against her customer's interests and now her customers are boycotting her? Pul-lease! Her customers are supposed to respect her 'right' to be a bigot and still give her money? Why, Mr Lopez, so she can give more money to the enemy? I have a dog in this fight. My brother is a minister and he had several gay marriages lined up prior to Prop Hate. That's a lot of money he (temporarily) lost out on. So, when this woman laments the loss of income as a result of the boycott, where are her tears for my brother, who has lost income as a result of HER actions?
I say boycott away, as long as people like her are still supporting bigotry with religion as an excuse. As long as my bro can't do his job then neither should she. As they say in the hood "you came 2 play da game, don't cry when others play by da same rulez".
Now let's say the roles were slightly reversed, and I was the owner of the restaurant and donated to No on 8. Let's say No on 8 won, and I was surrounded by Mormon church protesters who were former customers. Would I be upset? Probably, but I'd rather be protested for standing up for people's rights than be boycotted for taking away someone's rights.
Scott
· 11 months ago
Earlier this year, Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber and other "concerned women for America" boycotted McDonald's for doing something pro-gay, and staged a protest or two (with very little turnout).
How is this any different than gays boycotting this restaurant and staging protests?
At least we're not boycotting Ford for doing something pro-gay, and then sending in an "ex-gay" to demand a free vehicle, because, well, he's "ex-gay", and "ex-gays" live off handouts.
dula
· 11 months ago
Exactly! Even the progressive voices in the media don't really get it. John Stewart, in an interview with Huckabee about Prop. 8, made it a point to have a "respectful" discussion as if the pig's homophobia was a valid point of view. Imagine if after an interview with the Grand Pooba of the KKK, Stewart shook his hand and smiled and said, "Thank you so much for coming on my show. We all have a differing opinion on this controversial matter. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Let's have a warm round of applause for our guest. Thank you again, I hope you'll come back sometime soon so we can continue this healthy debate." (Insert some placating joke here...pleasant laughter all around...commercial)
judybrowni
· 11 months ago
However, in the rest of the interview Stewart eviserated Huckabee's lame arguments. It was a more incisive interview than I've seen on any other program.
greenwriter
· 11 months ago
Well said, John. And just to add, the SS motto was "Gott mit uns" - "God with Us." The hate-mongerers have always cloaked their cause with his alleged participation. I, for one, have no tears for Margie. Steve Lopez in the LA Times wrote a pity-party column for her, saying she just "voted her conscience" I say she voted without one.
Lisa Derrick
· 11 months ago
Thank you! I had a few choice words for Steve Lopez myself --and just ot clarify, there were no riot poilice at all, like he falsely reported. But mainly, I object to his attempt to portray Marjorie as victim of a civil rights struggle--she'sa victime of her church's narrow minded, bigoted ideology. http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2008/12/14/...
MrWebster
· 11 months ago
One outcome of the Prop 8 batlte has been the national exposure of the Mormon church for what they are. It has always seemed to me that as religious wackos, they have traveled under the radar with some national exposure now and then about polygamy in Utah. Now with them really stepping onto the national stage with Prop 8, the bathroom light has been switched on and suddenly we are wondering WTF what was that running into the drain. Suddenly they are not some joke local Utah pest, but living and replicating in your own backyard.
Sling Shot
· 11 months ago
With all deceivableness and unrighteousness she prepares an unclean table in the temple of a false god. She weepeth sore in the night and all of her friends have become her enemies.
Diogenes
· 11 months ago
In my opinion, her tears flow only for herself.
They do not flow for her "friends," or their rights, and therein lies the problem.
gwyneth
· 11 months ago
Wonderful article John! I was just explaining to a Mormon troll how according to it's arguments we should have never fought the civil war because it infringed on the religious belief's of the slave owners. Of course, I'm sure that they still won't "get it". But anyways, civil and human rights need to come FIRST before anyone's religious beliefs. I proclaim that is why we have a Constitution. Yes, the Nazi's used religion too. So did all the people who fought the Crusades and the inquisition... I don't understand how any red blooded American would agree to devolve to argument that was in effect 2 thousand years ago and during every great human rights catastrophe in the history of the World! Duh. And, then they wonder why I keep calling them gullible and not the sharpest tools in the shed....
horus
· 11 months ago
i have to keep saying it over and over and...
el coyote can rot in hell !
thank you john
StephanieInCA
· 11 months ago
Basically what Ms. Christoffersen is saying here is that gay Californians don't deserve the right to marry, but they *do* deserve the right to spend money at her restaurant?
No wonder she's singing a different tune now that SHE's the one who stands to lose something.
I agree with so much that you write, John, but when I disagree -- when I find an error lurking in the middle of your writing -- it is incumbent on me to point that out.
All Comments
The "but" always brings a tear to my eye, God love their half-brained non lateral minds.
Was SHE self-identified as Mormon in her restaurant rambles prior to the donor lists being known?
I'd wager she didn't proclaim her ministry...just another latter day pod person secreted within the population...
There seems to be plenty of press about the "victims" of the No on 8 campaign.I'd like to see PR about some real victims of the Yes on 8 legislation. Let's find a gay couple who have been together forever and have adopted disabled kids who are now being told that they're marriage is harmful to others. I'd pitch in to put their faces on TV commercials and in print.
Surely, if the Mormon Church can pour over $20 million into California to take away people's rights, they can cough up enough bucks to keep Margie in magic underwear for a few years.
What is particularly grating in this and other articles is that, while they decry the unfairness of boycotts by the No on H8 people, that is precisely what the Yes on H8 people were threatening to do before the election to any business that supported No.
But Matthew 5:31-32 tells us that Jesus says divorce is ok if she cheats. "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
Now Saint Paul, the guy who only ever met Jesus in a vision after falling off a horse, was a little looser. He said it was ok to divorce your spouse and get remarried as long as the one you divorced was not a believer. So your marriage was real, unless your spouse was an unbeliever, in which case they were right.
I know, I know. Saint Paul had the vision first, and then fell off his horse. But honestly, what was a guy who was prone to visions doing on a horse in the first place?
And yes, I read this column yesterday and thought it was pretty ridiculous. So what if her business loses money? What about the gay couples who have lost civil rights? Are they supposed to keep going to her restaurant so that her feelings aren't hurt?
So that means she's also funnelling 10% of her profits in a restaurant, with a large gay following, to the Mormon Church.
No surprise that gay customers don't want their money directly funnelled to those bigots.
As a side note, although I live in L.A., I haven't been to El Coyote for 20 years -- for a reason. The food was dreadful! (And from what I've read on restaurant review sites, it hasn't changed any.)
Enormous watered-down Margaritas, and a tacky, ironic, ambiance were it's calling card -- you'd need to be hammered to eat that food, the worst Mexican in L.A.
Taco Bell is better (and cleaner!)
Oh, that is PERFECT! YES!!!
My G-d tells me that Mormons are not true Christians! My G-d tells me Catholics, who hate gays, are bigots! WE CAN ALL PLAY THAT GAME!
Great post, John.
in fact, if you have unmarried daughters... feel free to sleep with them so they can have children.
just stay away from shellfish.
And let's see. Cain killed his brother Abel and then went east and married a woman who had to be his sister. I mean, Cain's parents Adam and Eve were the first humans, so who else could his wife be but his sister? So I guess it was ok.
Then there was Abraham who married his half sister Sara in Ur. Then the King of Gerara took Sara from Abraham because he wanted her to be one of his wives. So God got pissed and sent the king a dream to tell him that he would be destroyed for taking a woman who already had a husband. That means God approved of Abraham marrying his half sister. Well, the king took the hint and sent Sara back to Abraham, and they lived happily ever after until she died at the age of 127. Then he was a widower for the next 38 years until his death at the age of 175. So that tells us two things. God approves of brother/half-sister marriages, and Abraham was able to afford the very best health coverage.
And Abraham's brother Nachor married his niece Melcha if you look closely at Genesis 11:26-29.
And Moses had a bit of a skeleton in his family closet according to Exodus 6:19-20. His mother Jochabed (don't you just love that name?) was his father's sister. So Moses's mother was his Aunt. And I guess that makes his brother Aaron his cousin. Is it any wonder Moses saw visions?
I wonder how much a nice Canadian would run me.
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; They shall not be put to death, because she was not free."
Leviticus 20: 13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
or rules that could damn you...
either way... too much hassle, better to make millions in the rising stock market , become an overpaid CEO somewhere, and pay the workers little to nothing for working for you.
that's the 'Murrikan way!
I/we/you are not going to let this issue fade away without us getting everything that everyone else has or can have. That day is over, and when we elected Barack we entered a new millenium.
T
This is so incredibly important. No one has said this, and in such a well thought out logical way. You have totally wrecked the Christian Bigot Trump Card with this argument. Excellent... standing ovation!
Fred Phelps and Peter LaBarbera claim themselves above reproach for atrocious behavior and profoundly offensive ideology (e.g., LaBarbera wants all anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation rescinded) because of the God Says So/It's in the Bible and Thus Irrefutable/No Questioning Allowed Trump Card.
It's a scoundrel's refuge, and the allowance given (undeservedly) to such scoundrels is getting less and less (see Jon Stewart's recent interview of Mike Huckabee).
John, could you convert this into an LA Times op-ed? At the very least Steve Lopez needs to read it, and carefully so.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
I guess it will be easy to get a table now.
I'm joking!
just sayin...
The food was only so-so
Gays boycotting win
The waitress dresses are a hoot though!
Your semi-sob sister piece on Ms. Christofferson is baffling. Is your point that gay people should suck it up and continue to put money into the hands of people who will use it against them? That would be just stupid.
It's not a question of "fairness," as you seem to suggest. Ms. Christofferson is free to donate money to any cause she wants -- and I reserve the right to eat where I choose. I choose to give my money to people who won't use it against me. There are hundreds of restaurants in town, and I can't eat in them all. So, I have to make a choice. To even suggest that I should ignore people who support me and fund people who are inimical to my rights is ludicrous.
Imagine if El Coyote's crowd had been predominantly Jewish and it came to light that managers there were helping to fund the PLO or Hamas. Would you advocate that the Jews still patronize the place out of some sense of fairness? That would get you laughed out of town -- or worse.
I'm really fed up with the anti-gay rights crowd playing the tearful "victim" card. Actions have consequences. Fund an effort to take my rights away and I won't do business with you. That's just good sense. What really happened is that the people who funded Prop H8 didn't realize that their names would be made public. Too many people thought they could promote hate in secret and are now squirming when the light shines on them.
I have advocated that the No on H8 people should go one step further and do what they did in Massachusetts -- publish the names of everyone who signed the petitions to put the matter on the ballot. After all, if I have a right to know that there is a child molester in my neighborhood, I have a right to know if my neighbor is a homophobe.
In Massachusetts, you could hear the shrieking from one end of the state to the other, as the homophobes were exposed, claiming their "privacy" was violated. They didn't realize they were signing a public record. It also showed that many of the signatures on the petitions were put there fraudulently.
And, for the record, Ms. Christofferson's declaration that she likes gay people, but doesn't think they should have full civil rights is laughable -- right up there with "Some of my best friends are black, but I don't think they should marry white people."
Consequences \ˈkän(t)-sə-ˌkwen(t)s, -kwən(t)s
1: a conclusion derived through logic : inference2: something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions <the economic consequences of the war>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Conse...
Steve,
As a real fan of your column, I had to take this time to write you regarding your article this morning on Margie Christoffersen of El Cayote in Hollywood.
The definition above is to remind you that as adults, we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, plain and simple. Mrs, Christoffersen had what you described as a friendly relationship with the gay community and she even went so far as to say, "I love them like everybody else." The sad thing is, she didn't love them as much as she loved her religion. When she made that donation, she betrayed all those people that she claimed to love so much. The consequence of this action was understandable and not undeserved. Her former customers felt betrayed. I'm all for making a stand on principal and Mrs Christoffersen has every right express her opinion, but when you throw your friends "under the bus", you have to expect that there will be ramifications. Further, even if there were no "friendship" to speak of, why would anyone expect the gay community to continue to spend money in an establishment who's management clearly does not support them. Have you forgotten the history of Barney's Beanery already?
In the ensuing days, Mrs, Christoffersen had the opportunity to make amends to her "friends" by changing her stance on Prop 8 and chose not to. Again, Mrs. Christoffersen will have to accept responsibility for the consequences of her action as will the unfortunate employees (some of whom are gay) still in her employ.
The backlash she feels does not make her former customers anything more than human and to play her as some sort of victim in all of this really gives her a pass on adult responsibility. Stand up for your ideals, I say, but know going in that words and actions matter very much - especially to your friends - and that no matter what decisions you make today, there will be consequences.
Most Sincerely
Public decisons must be based on a common set of principles and a common approach. Since the days of the Founders, we have agreed that this public approach must be grounded on fact-based aguments and rationales that are rationally derived, and scientifically and empirically provable. In contrast, religious rationales at best only overlap occasionally, otherwise, they generally vary. If we allow fundamentalist Christian rationales to prevail, in fairness, what is to prevent Hindu, Muslim, or other religious traditions from demanding an equal standing? How can we ever find a common law to live under if we must now reconcile a multitude of religious sensibilities? The likely result is create in law a multitude of religious opt-outs.
Conservatives are desperate nowadays to carve out a public space for allowing individual religous standards to hold sway in matters involving conflicts with the rights of others. In the case of gays, as in many other cases, they have lost the fact-based, scientific, and empirical arugment and know it. Discrmination against gays cannot be legitimately defended on the commonly accepted grounds our tradition has set down. Therefore, a back-door to let in a whole set of new arguments is being demanded. We must fight this demand, and keep that door shut.
Of course the religious spokespeople and the press never seem to make the distinciton between being, say anti-Catholic or anti-Mormon and persecution of members of those religions.
;)
;)
VOTING their conscience?? VOTING??
no, voting is private and everyone is entitled their vote... this wasn't a VOTE, this was an ACTIVE DONATION to a proposition to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED.
okay, given that this proposition has created a precedent in California that the majority can vote on the rights of the minority... how about gathering signatures to come up with a proposition that defines mormonism as a cult and strips it of its tax exempt status in California?
how would the mormon church feel if THAT made the ballot?
I'm sure there are plenty of people who voted for Prop 8 who are genuinely shocked at the reaction. For them it has always been God and Country. T hey give their money to their churches, they go to the polls and vote their beliefs, and that has always seemed a good thing to them. I'm sure many a perfectly nice person never had to think before about either their money, their vote or their church doing something bad. And suddenly they are being confronted with a backlash for doing what they have always considered to be perfectly American apple pie. Probably most will see themselves as being victimized, rather than think about what they, their money and their church has done. It's just easier that way.
http://lafoodcrazy.blogspot.com/2008/12/sad-pos...
I find it especially insidious because the author knows all the players involved. He should know the Lopez article presents a distorted view (the gay "mob" ... cops in riot gear?) that vilifies El Coyote's loyal gay customers, but he's still pimping Lopez's hacktacular apologia for bigotry.
And don't ya just love how Lopez says gays "mobbed" El Coyote every Thursday night? Like we're in there screaming "Attica! Attica! Attica!" every gay night.
"El Coyote has given thousands of dollars over the last few weeks to GLBT causes and charities. The restaurant is now -- believe it or not -- being boycotted by various right-wing groups for doing so. Mormon wards as far away as San Diego have sent groups to the restaurant in support of the restaurant's supposedly "anti-gay" policies. But of course, those Mormon's ain't drinking margaritas. "
Oh, so the religious right can, and does, boycott, hmmmmm? Mormons are being bussed in to support, but they don't drink the Margaritas -- that Margie served hypocritically by the liquid ton to gays. Soooo it's okay for the Mormons to boycott Margaritas, and the Religious Right to boycott a restaurant, but those stripped of their rights -- nope.
To boycott is as American as the Boston Tea Party -- unless you're gay, according to the media. Then you're ordered to suck up the Margaritas of hate.
"Poor Margie" loved gay money...money is at the root of the LDS, you can read about it in their history.
A sales pitch is a sales pitch where I come from. So Margie got a few laughs from people she basically disdained and hated...even serving alcohol (and probably coffee and tea, too) which is against her own religion.
And you expected her to be a real friend when she can't even respect her own religious beliefs for the sake of a buck?
Look--when people finally figured out that black folks had some money to spend and places of business finally desegregated due to court orders, they were welcomed, too, but still hated, even to this day. "Don't trust whitey" wasn't just a phrase.
Some things never change. Even now, I try to find out who the religious nuts are around here (and there are many) so I don't have to frequent their businesses. And I'm just an old white atheist...
Hope this is a wake-up call to anyone who considers disciminating and thinking there will be no backlash.
Good post John. Nice reponse Ritorna
Enjoy.
But then he played gay in "In and Out". And no, I don't think he ran to the press telling them kissing Kevin Klein was the hardest thing he ever had to do.
"So," I thought, "Mel only takes it in the mouth?"
Eddie Murphy should have lost his career, too.
If these may seem like harsh things to say, it's a symptom of people, like Steve Lopez, thinking that hatred of gay people is not something we should be taking all that seriously.
Lay that on those religious dick wads.
Steve
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,466504,00.html
I hope she learns that when you lay down with dogs (or give them money), you might wake up with fleas.
Remember the folks that took out the full page ad in the NYT accusing gays and lesbians of being terrorists? One of the people with their name attached to that was a guy named Richard Cizik. Well, another group took out a full page ad in the Salt Lake City Tribune pointing out, among other things, that Mr. Cizik thinks the mormon church is a cult. Now it appears Dick has resigned from being a vice-president at the National Association of Evangelicals. Hmmm........
From wikipedia:
"On December 11, 2008, Cizik gave his resignation from his position with NAE after a December 2 radio broadcast of NPR's Fresh Air in which he voiced support for same-sex civil unions."
Link
. I've stopped shopping at places for the same reason and I see no reason not to encourage others to do the same. Don't give money to your enemies.
The only people I do feel a bit for are the gay employees. Its a tough job market out there.
My parents haven't spoken to me in 20 years because their God demands I be shunned before I burn for eternity in Hell.
So if people want to take away the fag's rights because God demands it, let them.
Then let's see if they can get their Buybulls to cough up some cash when the fag's take their money elsewhere.
I've never understood the thinking of those who think working to pass a discriminatory law is a celebrated act of freedom of speech but when the person who is on the receiving end of that discriminatory law decides to not give his/her money to that person or their business it's condemned as petty and shameful.
I noticed that he failed to mention the threatening letter that the Pro Prop 8 people sent out to business owners who supported No on 8 threatening them if they didn't donate money to the Pro 8 side. He failed to mention the religious boycotts of Disney, Ford, Microsoft and countless other big companies for having the audacit to be supportive of their gay employees or the boycott of smaller companies simply because they are owned by a gay person. And he also failed to mention that 99.9% of the time gay people only go after the churches AFTER they have attacked us. We are ALWAYS in a defensive position against the churches. We have NEVER been the one to fire the first shot and we have NEVER put anything on any ballot to take away religious people's rights to their religious BELIEFS. We do take a stand when they try to turn THEIR beliefs into OUR LAWS.
Yeah, it's always those poor Christians/Mormons that are on the receiving end of bullying and hate.
not. a. big. deal.
Pick yourself up, Marjorie, and go on with your life with the certain knowledge that you will go to heaven and have your own personal fiefdom with lots of unwilling non-Mormons to push food on.
Her Church in Wasilla burnt up.
I expose the possible perpetrator(s)
http://thetimchannel.com/?p=310
Enjoy.
But, it happened anyway. :) And, this will happen too when enough people get scared thinking about letting the Mormons define marriage - they've never been able to do so without infringing on other people's rights in the history of their existence and this is no exception. They infringed on a child's rights with their polygamy and now they want the Constitution to apply to ONLY them. Yeah, real Christian - they just don't get it!
PRICELESS!
What a great rant, John. I especially liked your side jab at the people who like to police public discussion of the Nazi regime.
Margie Christoffersen is well within her rights to contribute to any cause she believes in - that is the right of every American. She is, however, accountable for her actions as she is now discovering.
She claims to love gay people like everyone else and yet she has contributed money to, and presumably voted for, an amendment to take away their rights. If she had voted to overturn Loving vs. Virginia and repeal the rights of black to marry whites the outcry would have been just as severe if not more so. I fail to see the difference here - discrimination and bigotry is discrimination and bigotry.
Ms. Christoffersen is just like every other two-faced 'supporter' of gay people. She's more than willing to take advantage of us for labor, for income or anything else that fits her needs and will pretend to be 'supportive' all the while. That support ends, however, when her 'religion' tells her to do something that goes against us. At that point her 'friends' are expendable.
I feel badly for the staff of the restaurant who had nothing to do with her actions. I feel badly for the customers who used to think that she was their friend. I do not feel badly for Ms. Christoffersen or her family. As 'good Mormons' they are required to contribute a percentage of their income to the LDS on a weekly basis. Much of that money has, in turn, been used against us. This means that by supporting this restaurant the hard-earned money we pay for services rendered is in turn used to finance a war against us. This is unacceptable.
If, Mr. Lopez, the shoe were on the other foot and the LDS were attempting to take away the civil rights of Hispanic Americans or Immigrants would you continue to patronize this establishment and contribute to your own problems? Would you write an article that attempts to drum up support for the 'poor misunderstood woman'? I think we both know the answer would be no.
By contributing her money and placing her vote Ms. Christoffersen clearly stated her own protest. By protesting her restaurant and boycotting their services we have done the same. The difference is that we have chosen to make our protests in the light of day instead of trying to keep them covered up.
Ms. Christoffersen may not be, at heart, an evil person. She may not have thought about the ramifications of the contribution that she made, however by making that contribution in the name of 'religious belief' and placing that vote she has violated the trust of the gay community. We cannot, and will not, continue to support an establishment that would turn even a tiny bit of it's profits over to a religious group that would wage a war on our civil rights. We cannot, and will not, allow this affront to go unchallenged so that our supporters in the straight community will continue to unknowingly contribute to the religious war on gay people. Behavior such as this should to be brought out into the bright clear light of day for all to see and judge.
I will never set foot into the El Coyote again as long as it is under current ownership. Perhaps they can find enough support among the Pro Prop 8 crowd to keep themselves open.
The idiocy is Margie Christoffersen, given GLBT community is or was a big supporter of El Coyote, given it is more of a local hangout, and for her to donate money to the No on 8 campaign, is sort of economic suicide.
The laziness is GLBT community, protesting this place is sort of like taking baby from a candy. If they have cajones, they should protest Cavalry Church in Thousand Oaks or some of the really conservative organizations that are nestled in Southern California's countless suburbs.
The hypocrisy is also on Margie Christoffersen's part. If she is such a devout follower of the LDS, then most of her income from what El Coyote is renown for: Their Margaritas. Their Margaritas are what brings in the customers. So technically, Margie Christoffersen's income is "blood money" and Jose Cuervo indirectly funded the Prop 8 campaign.
Lazy, my ass. They took the low-hanging fruit first, and they took it big time. Sometimes, you have to get. People's. Attention. I'd say that it worked well...Hollywood-style.
However, the fundamentalist live in the burbs and other counties like Orange and Ventura. They have non descript jobs and don't owned primo real estate on the west side of LA.
Taking down someone like Howard Ahmanson, who's company and himself and his partner gave I believed a million on Yes on 8 campaign.
One of the reason why No on 8 campaign lost was that they didn't do any outreach to the burbs. When the vote was 50/50 in LA county, a couple people didn't do their homework at the No on 8 campaign. The votes in LA County went 70/30 for Obama, and LA County is more of a moderate county compare to SF, Marin and San Mateo.
I guess the difference is that this particular business was so heavily invested in a gay customer base that it actually worked.
She is the type that will not draw a line between right and wrong. She threw her friends, associates, customers, business all away in order to practice her brand of hatred in an act the she believed would never, ever be revealed. And be of no consequence to her business bottom line.
Good ol' Marge's failure to stand up for right and wrong, to draw that line in the sand, shows where her heart really lies.
If she wouldn't draw a line now, would she at more blatant issues? Housing? Jobs? Healthcare?
Or would she be able to draw a line at a railhead during a "selection" process?
Somehow I doubt that good ol' Marge would be able to draw a line even there.
Fight the Mormon cult at each and every turn! As if your very life depended upon it.
What's the definition of a fag?
It's a gay man who just left the room.
And if Margie (who I've been served by, many times over the years and especially when I was working at CBS) has a problem with that, that's just too fucking bad.
Too. Fucking. Bad.
Switching out gays for blacks/Jews really shows the fallacy of the argument.
Both the domestic, abortion-clinic-bombing types and the political and radical Islamic types are told to murder people by God. Charles Guiteau was told to kill President Garfield by God. But God was acquitted and Charlie committed until he should hang. (:
In any case, I think terrorists are a stronger example than Nazis in this case, given that Nazis were motivated more by a kind of social Darwinism than religion. They wanted a pure "Aryan" world and "living space" for their "race"; divine justification was more like incidental. Radical Islamic terrorists are much more directly told to kill by God (though Osama bin Laden's statements are mostly political rather than religious, the individual suicide bombers are religion-driven).
You know, sometimes I wonder at the level of protection that religion gets. Somehow, if what you think or act can be filed under "religion", you get special exemptions. If I decided that I don't eat potatoes or peppers, if I'm somehow thrown in jail, I'll be made to eat them anyway, but if I decided instead that I don't eat pork or mix meat and milk because I adhere to kashrut, they'll have special kosher meals for me. How is one more of a decision than the other? Things called "religion" get special treatment. As an atheist Jew, this bothers me on some levels.
Only a pork taco is equal to a gay marriage because both are an abomination.
spentaculor!
Does the Mormon Church ban most history books? It seems like they do because they so piously and rigorously reject all the historical facts that even a third grader would know.
Anyway, check your email that you have your comments going to because as I said, they wait until they think no one is paying attention to propagandize these threads with their nonsense.
Pul-lease! Her customers are supposed to respect her 'right' to be a bigot and still give her money? Why, Mr Lopez, so she can give more money to the enemy?
I have a dog in this fight. My brother is a minister and he had several gay marriages lined up prior to Prop Hate. That's a lot of money he (temporarily) lost out on. So, when this woman laments the loss of income as a result of the boycott, where are her tears for my brother, who has lost income as a result of HER actions?
I say boycott away, as long as people like her are still supporting bigotry with religion as an excuse. As long as my bro can't do his job then neither should she. As they say in the hood "you came 2 play da game, don't cry when others play by da same rulez".
Now let's say the roles were slightly reversed, and I was the owner of the restaurant and donated to No on 8. Let's say No on 8 won, and I was surrounded by Mormon church protesters who were former customers. Would I be upset? Probably, but I'd rather be protested for standing up for people's rights than be boycotted for taking away someone's rights.
How is this any different than gays boycotting this restaurant and staging protests?
At least we're not boycotting Ford for doing something pro-gay, and then sending in an "ex-gay" to demand a free vehicle, because, well, he's "ex-gay", and "ex-gays" live off handouts.
interview than I've seen on any other program.
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2008/12/14/...
They do not flow for her "friends," or their rights, and therein lies the problem.
el coyote can rot in hell !
thank you john
No wonder she's singing a different tune now that SHE's the one who stands to lose something.
Read more: Tacos, with a side of bigotry
So here goes.
You're missing the second N in "millennia".
That is all.