cruz meet sparks apology

[Danzig]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...pgtype=article


i have several thoughts about the whole story.
it would be somewhat strange to get together with someone who is so staunchly against all that you are....but i feel the actions people have taken against these two fellows is wrong. how better to get one to hopefully change his likely uninformed mind about gay folks than to meet with gay folks? how can you get someone to confront their ideas and beliefs than to show him that you're just a fellow human trying to find your way in the world?
some are reacting to ted cruz in exactly the same way cruz reacts to them. that doesn't help, does it?

[dellinger63]

Imagine the outrage shown and rightfully so if Cruz apologized to the religious right for meeting with gays.

This shouldn't be about changing anyone or anything. This should be about tolerance.

[GenuineRisk]

I think the boycott is because it's highly likely they didn't just meet with him; it's likely they also gave his campaign money (or at the very least, introduced him to other people with deep pockets). They've supported Republican politicians with anti-gay platforms before; I think they just got a bit too obvious about it. They are rich white guys before anything else, and so it's not surprising they are looking to their bank accounts above the rights of the LGBT community, but if they're making money off their connection to the very same LGBT community, they can't act shocked and stunned when said community chooses to withhold its consumer dollars from them for something like this.

[Danzig]

He stressed the Cruz meeting wasn’t a fund-raiser, and “I never would have, I never will” support Cruz, who opposes same-sex marriage.

Reisner said he and Weiderpass “have been passionate and devoted supporters of gay rights,” and “the only way we make progress is to engage with our opponents. I don’t need to sit with Hillary Clinton and talk about gay marriage, they’re with us. We have to work with the difficult ones and show them we don’t have horns.”

ok, have more time.
yeah, i don't know if it was a fundraiser or not, or if they have other reasons to support cruz-or if as they say they just wanted to show him they 'don't have horns'.
that said, i think they could have found someone with the republican party more amenable to reason to speak with. i think trying to get cruz to consider changing his stance on that would be nearly impossible.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

He stressed the Cruz meeting wasn’t a fund-raiser, and “I never would have, I never will” support Cruz, who opposes same-sex marriage.

Reisner said he and Weiderpass “have been passionate and devoted supporters of gay rights,” and “the only way we make progress is to engage with our opponents. I don’t need to sit with Hillary Clinton and talk about gay marriage, they’re with us. We have to work with the difficult ones and show them we don’t have horns.”

They (the LGBT community) don't care about that. They just want to write him hate mail, give him death threats, and boycott his company. They are such tolerant people. The LGBT community is very open-minded and tolerant. They are very respectful of people with different views. LOL.

I think Bill Maher had it right when he talked about the "gay mafia". Maher's exact quote was "I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do."

"Maher didn't elaborate on what he considers to be the "gay mafia," but the comment suggested he believes that there is a group of powerful gay people, or activists, who go after companies that disagree with their political views."

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1747421

How is this any less reprehensible than if conservatives started a boycott and made death threats to gay business owners? I think that behavior from either side is disgraceful. But there is a huge double-standard. If conservatives engaged in the type of behavior (boycotts, hate-mail, and death threats) that the LGBT and liberals engage in, you would probably have the Justice Department doing an investigation and looking to prosecute them for a hate crime. But when the LGBT does it, they are just exercising their right to spend their consumer dollars the way they want.

If you read some of the comments from the articles, it is clear that many gay people (and plenty of straight liberals) believe that if you think that the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, then you are a really bad, intolerant, hateful person. So then they are justified in their own hate for conservatives.

Let me be clear on my position. I am against anyone (regardless of sexual orientation or political affiliation) threatening, bullying, trying to intimidate, sending hate mail, or boycotting people's businesses simply because they disagree with a person on an issue. It would be one thing if the person was a murderer. For example, if OJ Simpson had a business and people boycotted it, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But to threaten someone, bully someone, or boycott someone's business simply because they have a different lifestyle or belief is totally wrong IMO.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They (the LGBT community) don't care about that. They just want to write him hate mail, give him death threats, and boycott his company. They are such tolerant people. The LGBT community is very open-minded and tolerant. They are very respectful of people with different views. LOL.

I think Bill Maher had it right when he talked about the "gay mafia". Maher's exact quote was "I think there is a gay mafia," Maher said. "I think if you cross them, you do get whacked. I really do."

How is this any less reprehensible than if conservatives started a boycott and made death threats to gay business owners? I think that behavior from either side is disgraceful. But there is a huge double-standard. If conservatives engaged in the type of behavior (boycotts, hate-mail, and death threats) that the LGBT and liberals engage in, you would probably have the Justice Department doing an investigation and looking to prosecute them for a hate crime. But when the LGBT does it, they are just exercising their right to spend their consumer dollars the way they want.

If you read some of the comments from the articles, it is clear that many gay people (and plenty of straight liberals) believe that if you think that the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, then you are a really bad, intolerant, hateful person. So then they are justified in their own hate for conservatives.

Let me be clear on my position. I am against anyone (regardless of sexual orientation or political affiliation) threatening, bullying, trying to intimidate, sending hate mail, or boycotting people's businesses simply because they disagree with a person on an issue. It would be one thing if the person was a murderer. For example, if OJ Simpson had a business and people boycotted it, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But to threaten someone, bully someone, or boycott someone's business simply because they have a different lifestyle or belief is totally wrong IMO.

1. Please indicate where the LGBT boycotters have made death threats to the hotel owners. Because otherwise, that's filed under "things Rupert made up."

2. Bill Maher? Seriously?

3. See "lack of death threats," above.

3a. See Dixie Chicks, circa 2003, and death threats. For which there is actually corroboration. The idea that conservatives don't react to political dissent with threats of violence is laughable. There's a fine documentary, "Shut Up and Sing," highly recommended.

4. If you want to legally limit marriage to heterosexual unions, then yes, you are bigoted and intolerant. Which Cruz does. If you are personally opposed to gay marriage, then don't get gay married.

5. So you think it was terrible that black Atlantans boycotted the public bus system in the 1950s- the one that forced them to sit in the back, then. Interesting. And unsurprising.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

1. Please indicate where the LGBT boycotters have made death threats to the hotel owners. Because otherwise, that's filed under "things Rupert made up."

2. Bill Maher? Seriously?

3. See "lack of death threats," above.

3a. See Dixie Chicks, circa 2003, and death threats. For which there is actually corroboration. The idea that conservatives don't react to political dissent with threats of violence is laughable. There's a fine documentary, "Shut Up and Sing," highly recommended.

4. If you want to legally limit marriage to heterosexual unions, then yes, you are bigoted and intolerant. Which Cruz does. If you are personally opposed to gay marriage, then don't get gay married.

5. So you think it was terrible that black Atlantans boycotted the public bus system in the 1950s- the one that forced them to sit in the back, then. Interesting. And unsurprising.

Yeah, ive seen nothing about death threats, just boycotts...with good reason since

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...riage-equality

You can't boycott Cruz...can't even write him if you aren't from Texas, even tho as a us senator, he can cause us all issues. As for it being up to the states, as that elected idiot says...
One, that's poli-speak for I don't like but can't figure out a palatable argument against it.
Two, the federal govt. Has granted rights to married people for a long time, and has levied penalties against legally married couples...ie Windsor.
Third, we were in the navy when we married. I was a resident of MD, he of ar. Stationed in cali. Have since lived in MD, fl, mo and ar. Our marriage was recognized by every state, and by the feds. That same reciprocity should occur for every married couple. Equal protection under the law is a right for all Americans, and is not a state issue.

And if rupe said the bus boycott was wrong, it only reaffirms my choice to place him with dell.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Yeah, ive seen nothing about death threats, just boycotts...with good reason since

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...riage-equality

You can't boycott Cruz...can't even write him if you aren't from Texas, even tho as a us senator, he can cause us all issues. As for it being up to the states, as that elected idiot says...
One, that's poli-speak for I don't like but can't figure out a palatable argument against it.
Two, the federal govt. Has granted rights to married people for a long time, and has levied penalties against legally married couples...ie Windsor.
Third, we were in the navy when we married. I was a resident of MD, he of ar. Stationed in cali. Have since lived in MD, fl, mo and ar. Our marriage was recognized by every state, and by the feds. That same reciprocity should occur for every married couple. Equal protection under the law is a right for all Americans, and is not a state issue.

And if rupe said the bus boycott was wrong, it only reaffirms my choice to place him with dell.

Who the hell can be against boycotts? Non-violent, personal choice of where to spend disposable income. Who could possibly oppose them?

Here are some successful ones, including several that were about animal welfare. But Rupert opposes all of them. Was unaware he was such a fan of pheasant hunts and using elderly captive elephants in advertising.

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boyco...lboycotts.aspx

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Who the hell can be against boycotts? Non-violent, personal choice of where to spend disposable income. Who could possibly oppose them?

Here are some successful ones, including several that were about animal welfare. But Rupert opposes all of them. Was unaware he was such a fan of pheasant hunts and using elderly captive elephants in advertising.

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boyco...lboycotts.aspx

Hell, boycotts have been a way of american protest since before the american revolution. Townsend duties and all that....


an effective non violent way to protest. Probably why people still call for them here. And since they are effective i guess thats why some dont care for them.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

1. Please indicate where the LGBT boycotters have made death threats to the hotel owners. Because otherwise, that's filed under "things Rupert made up.".

He may have been thinking of the Indiana pizza joint that refused to cater pizza to gay weddings?

http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/04/an...ia-funded.html

Or the Michigan auto shop owner

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...death_thr.html

Or the Florida baker

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fl-ba...anti-gay-cake/

Or the Oklahoma Senator

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...lgbt_activists

Or the Illinois mother

http://chalcedon.edu/research/articl...aten-violence/

Or the British hotel owners

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4070774.html

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

He may have been thinking of the Indiana pizza joint that refused to cater pizza to gay weddings?

http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/04/an...ia-funded.html

Or the Michigan auto shop owner

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...death_thr.html

Or the Florida baker

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fl-ba...anti-gay-cake/

Or the Oklahoma Senator

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...lgbt_activists

Or the Illinois mother

http://chalcedon.edu/research/articl...aten-violence/

Or the British hotel owners

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4070774.html

Crickets!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

He may have been thinking of the Indiana pizza joint that refused to cater pizza to gay weddings?

http://www.grubstreet.com/2015/04/an...ia-funded.html

Or the Michigan auto shop owner

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...death_thr.html

Or the Florida baker

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fl-ba...anti-gay-cake/

Or the Oklahoma Senator

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...lgbt_activists

Or the Illinois mother

http://chalcedon.edu/research/articl...aten-violence/

Or the British hotel owners

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4070774.html

Exactly!

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...o_opposes.html