Thursday, December 11, 2008

The Gay War on Businesses, part of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, placed an ad in the New York Times speaking out against the religious bigotry of the Prop. 8 gay activists. It was signed by notables such as Nathan J. Diament Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Rich CizikNational Association of Evangelicals, and Martin Luther King's niece, Dr. Alveda C. King Civil rights activist.

It reads in part:

We’re a disagreeable lot. We differ about a great many important things. Most, but not all of us, are religious believers. We likewise differ on important moral and legal questions, including the wisdom and justice of California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.
Nevertheless we’re united in this: The violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or “Mormon” church, and other religious organizations—and even against individual believers—simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop.


Religious groups can’t claim some sort of special immunity from criticism. Nevertheless, there’s a world of difference between legitimate political give-and-take and violent attempts to cow your opponents into submission. Violence and intimidation are always wrong, whether the victims are believers, gay people, or anyone else.

It is perfectly appropriate as well that all voices be heard. That is a basic point of democracy: The proper response to free speech you disagree with is your own free speech in reply, not attempting to coerce your opponents into silence.

Let’s be clear: even the crudest anti-religious propaganda isn’t illegal, and may not constitutionally be outlawed. But it’s nevertheless wrong. It has no place in civilized society.

The entire ad is here.

The activist gay community has only hurt it's cause by resorting to intimidation and threats to those individuals and businesses that disagreed with gay marriage California.

Take for example Marjorie Christoffersen, co- manager of a popular eatery in Hollywood called El Coyote's. When the gay activists discovered that she had contributed $100 to support Prop. 8, protests began at her restaurant.

Marjorie Christoffersen is a Mormon and known for her kindness. When one of her gay employee's partner died from AIDS, Marjorie paid for his mother to fly out for his funeral.

Christoffersen met privately with 60 LA LGBT activists after the protests started and expressed regret in her decision to donate $100 to the “Yes on Prop 8″ campaign. She insisted that the donation had been personal and because of her faith and had nothing to do with the restaurant. It seemed clear she didn't want the employees of the restaurant to suffer because of her. She said to them, “I’m sick of heart that I’ve offended anyone in the gay community. I have had, and do have family, friends, and people I work with of course who are gay…and you are treasured people to me.” She went on to say, "Over the years Coyote has financially supported many charities and thousands of dollars most particularly have been given to the gay interests and charities. The restaurant does not support any political group.” She then became too emotional to continue. She has since resigned from El Coyotes'.

The openly-gay restaurant manager Billy Schoeppner, announced that El Coyote would make two $5,000 contributions, each to the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund.

All this has not been enough for the gay activists though. They felt there wasn't an "outright apology."

See how this works? While it clear that Mrs. Christoffersen cares for her employees, including and especially it's gay members, she still felt that gay marriage is wrong. But she is not allowed to believe that. Not according to the gay activists of Prop. 8. Her business, which employs gay and straight alike, also must suffer. Such is the way of intimidation of these activists.

These types of protests are happening all over California. I blogged before how gay activists are posting names of all those who gave money to support Pro. 8 and encouraging all to boycott their businesses.

This gives you some idea of why this New York Times Ad was necessary.

This is the activists response. The ad is critical of some in the religious community, but doesn't address the unacceptable behavior of the gay activists. Maybe because there is no justification for it.