Matt, yes I did see it and was thinking about blogging about it tomorrow.
Jay
· 11 months ago
Good points all around, especially your comment on Malkin's blog. Although, seriously, could you just go ahead and say Tammy Bruce is a lesbian (which is what she calls herself) instead of saying that she has "embraced a lesbian identity"? That whole "identity" thing just seems a little condescending to me. She's a woman who is attracted to and has sex with other women. She's a lesbian. It's like saying I've "embraced a student identity" because I go to college. It's not an identity. It's a label that describes what I do.
Mensley
· 11 months ago
Hey, maybe that's just how Randy was raised to say it. ;-p
Randy
· 11 months ago
::: laugh ::: maybe ...
Brady
· 11 months ago
Any vandalism that has occurred is horrible. However, there have been tens of thousands of people demonstrating across the state, and to some degree across the nation, and the huge, huge majority have been peaceful. This movement, as a whole has been peaceful, and all of the official and non-official messages have been about peacefully demonstrating. Blaming a handful of vandals doesn't seem fair.
As for blacklisting--let's not forge that the actual campaign of Yes on 8 attempted to blackmail several companies for supporting No on 8. It's kind of hard for me to accept Michelle calling one of them out and not the other.
Randy
· 11 months ago
Well Brady, I don't think Michelle is looking to you for acceptance or feels the need you seem to have to try and draw the moral equivalence card.
And your example isn't exactly equivalent in my book. I know of people who are collecting evidence of all that has happened and the instances of vandalism is far greater than what is being reported. It's actually astounding. I'll post about it when it becomes available.
Blackmail? hardly. It's hardball activism and gay groups do it almost every single day. Doesn't mean I like it but it isn't the same as threatening the livelihood of a Restaraunt owner and all her employees just because she gave $100 to support Prop 8.
Brady
· 11 months ago
Hi Randy,
Point taken about Michelle, although I wasn't really looking for her acceptance in the first place. Just making a point in response to hers.
As for your reference to El Coyote--the gay folks in that example are doing exactly the same as the "Yes" folks were. The Yes people sent a letter to "No" contributors and said if you don't give us money too, we will tell the world, and your business will suffer. It's exactly the same thing except the gay group didn't mail a threat first.
The Yes group was "threatening the livelihood" of those companies too. And really, for the record, it makes sense that gays would decide not to eat at a restaurant that holds opposite values of them. Christan groups do much the same thing--see boycotts of Disney, Pepsi, Ford, etc. etc.
All Comments
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view...
As for blacklisting--let's not forge that the actual campaign of Yes on 8 attempted to blackmail several companies for supporting No on 8. It's kind of hard for me to accept Michelle calling one of them out and not the other.
And your example isn't exactly equivalent in my book. I know of people who are collecting evidence of all that has happened and the instances of vandalism is far greater than what is being reported. It's actually astounding. I'll post about it when it becomes available.
Blackmail? hardly. It's hardball activism and gay groups do it almost every single day. Doesn't mean I like it but it isn't the same as threatening the livelihood of a Restaraunt owner and all her employees just because she gave $100 to support Prop 8.
Point taken about Michelle, although I wasn't really looking for her acceptance in the first place. Just making a point in response to hers.
As for your reference to El Coyote--the gay folks in that example are doing exactly the same as the "Yes" folks were. The Yes people sent a letter to "No" contributors and said if you don't give us money too, we will tell the world, and your business will suffer. It's exactly the same thing except the gay group didn't mail a threat first.
The Yes group was "threatening the livelihood" of those companies too. And really, for the record, it makes sense that gays would decide not to eat at a restaurant that holds opposite values of them. Christan groups do much the same thing--see boycotts of Disney, Pepsi, Ford, etc. etc.