A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation to Prop 10

[Political Heretic]

Proposition 10 is a proposition to deny black people the right to sit in restaurants with white people.

http://www.ifthiswerethestoryyouwouldntbedefendingtheshopkeeper.com


--------------------

She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of "for" and "against" donors. And El Coyote became a target.

A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting "shame on you" at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.

The mob left, but so did the customers.

Sections of the restaurant have been closed, a manager told me Friday during a very quiet lunch hour. Some of the 89 employees, many of them black, have had their hours cut, and layoffs are looming. And Christoffersen, who has taken a voluntary leave of absence, is wondering whether she'll ever again be able to work at the restaurant, which opened in 1931 (at 1st and La Brea) and is owned by her 92-year-old mother.

"It's been so hard," she said, breaking down again.


Margie tried to smooth things over last month by inviting African-American clients to a free lunch to talk it over, but she left in tears when asked if she would write a check to the group challenging Prop. 10.


-----------------------

The only reason the responses on this thread....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=389&topic_id=4649075&mesg_id=4649075

...are so concerned about the "poor" shop owner is because to this day LGBT equality is not considered as "real" of an issue of justice as other more "real" civil rights issues.

[terrya]

1. Thank you for putting this story in proper perspective. Recommended.

[el_bryanto]

2. That's an interesting thought

Worth considering whether or not freedom of speech is intended to protect views even as hateful as those. Hard to know.

I genuinely believe that your commitment to freedom of speech is measured in your willingness to tolerate the expression of views you find hateful. That's certainly a hateful view.

Bryant

[Deep13]

4. Freedom of speech is a legal right of all involved...

...including the protestors. First, I dispute that a political contribution is speech regardless of what Scalia says. Second, no one is disputing her right to make one. We merely dispute her right to have everyone else shut up about it.

[Solon]

6. Who the fuck is advocating to punish her legally for her donation?

Has anyone, in that thread or this one advocated she be thrown in jail, or fined, whatever, for her political donation or what she says about Marriage? No, so shut the fuck up about free speech.

[el_bryanto]

8. Ah.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without restraint; I agree that the first amendment only protects individuals from governmental interference with their right to speak. However I also oppose non-governmental attempts to silence people (for example, I would oppose boycotts in an attempt to get Rush Limbaugh taken off the air).

That said I am rethinking this situation a bit; could be I'm wrong.

[Solon]

9. Freedom of speech is freedom to speak without LEGAL restraint...

what other private citizens do, including using those same freedoms in addition to others ones(assembly, expression) to punish you for your use of speech is ALSO protected, and isn't relevant to free speech discussions.

[el_bryanto]

11. I strongly disagree there

A discussion of American Ideals involves both how the government should act in relation to those ideals and how we as citizens should act in relation to those ideals. And when it comes to freedom of speech, I don't believe in freelance attempts to punish people for expressing ideas you disagree with.

Bryant

[QC]

13. Why do you think she is entitled to anyone's business?

She's not. And if she's going to run a business with a heavily gay clientele, she would do well not to be quite so publicly a homophobic bigot.

If people do not want to do business with those who hate them, that is their right. It's that freedom of choice people are always talking about.

[mondo joe]

17. Then why do you want to dampen the free speech of the protestors?

Isn't their speech of equal standing?

[el_bryanto]

20. Yes it is

Bryant

[mondo joe]

22. Then why do you think they shouldn't have the right speak as frely as she does?

Did you think responses are not covered by free speech?

[el_bryanto]

26. It depends on the type of response

If you said something I totally disagreed with and i responded by saying "Well here's why you are wrong Mondo Joe, blah blah blah" that would be totally fine.

On the other hand if you said something i thought totally wrong and then tried to get you banned or tried to punish you in some other way for disagreeing with me, well, I'd be within my rights, but I don't think it would be the right thing to do.

Bryant

[mondo joe]

27. Oh I see - you're the judge of what is acceptable speech and not.

The only person here critical of free speech is you.

[el_bryanto]

29. That's kind of an odd response

But ok. If you want me to have that kind of power, who am I to question Mondo Joe?

Bryant

[Maven]

39. So you get to tell us where we spend our money?

We have to pay more than you do in taxes, and on top of that we have to give money to people who oppose us?

Or do you just support the poor little bigot's POV?

[el_bryanto]

41. It is very tiresome to have to repeat this point

A similar measure was on the ballot here in Florida; I voted against it. I do not agree with Proposition 8.

I don't know why you have to pay more than me in taxes unless you make more then me, in which case, congratulations.

You as an individual do not have to visit any business you don't want to.

When you try to organize a boycott or protest a business to punish them economically for supporting a political position you disagree with, I question whether or not that is in harmony with the principle of freedom of speech.

Bryant

[Maven]

42. We pay more in taxes, genius, because we're not recognized as married under the law.

Therefore, gay couples pay as two single people.

And we'll organize any goddamn boycott we want. It's obvious people like you aren't going to stand up for us. If the only weapon we have is our much-talked-about disposable income, so be it.

[el_bryanto]

43. Well good luck with that.

[LeftyMom]

46. Gay people pay more in taxes because the feds interpret health benefits from their spouses/partners

as income, and do not for straight couples whose marriages are recognized on a federal level. That's quite a bit of added "income" and can easily be enough to push a person into a higher tax bracket.

[LeftCoast]

51. I get hosed to the tune of nearly $400 / mo because of this

It definitely pushed me into another tax bracket as well.

Bigotry has real world costs, at least in this case.

[DireStrike]

53. Organizing a boycott is against the principle of free speech?

I can't think of any way that would be so. The only way to organize a boycott is to convince people that your boycott is right. That's accomplished through sharing of ideas by speaking.

If you find their methods offensive, that's another story, but I think most of it is covered under freedom of expression anyway. If you find their attempts to organize a boycott in the first place offensive, I just don't see how you can reconcile that with being pro-free speech. A boycott is a form of expression, attempting to convince others of something.

Would you object if a single person stood outside the restaurant, informing customers that the manager contributed to prop 8?

[tpsbmam]

56. You know, I keep hearing this argument on DU.....

While I haven't organized boycotts, I certainly do encourage friends & acquaintances to do as I do when it comes to the businesses they support with their hard earned dollars. And that is the following: I do pay attention to the political contributions made by both local businesses & chain stores. I try to stay away from those that give the bulk (or all) of their contributions to Republicans. I do, indeed, try to "buy blue." By the same token, I'm an animal lover -- I try not to buy from companies that experiment on animals -- there are plenty that don't these days and it's not too difficult. I simply share this information with friends/acquaintances and hope they'll join me. I have successfully, for example, managed to convince others to switch pizza orders from Domino's to other local businesses when I explained who Tom Monaghan is and where his political contributions go -- is not putting more money into his pocket to give to conservative causes a bad thing? How the hell am I stifling his freedom of speech by refusing to support his politics?

I try to stay away from companies that give the bulk of their contributions to Republicans because I don't want one penny of my money to end up in Republican coffers. I do the animal testing thing simply because I don't want to support a needlessly cruel practice.

So why is doing this any different than boycotting businesses that contributed to yes on Prop 8? Why should anyone in the GLBT community, or those of us who support our GLBT friends/family, be expected to support with our $$$ those businesses and, like me with Republican support, have even a half cent of that money then poured into anti-GLBT civil rights causes? I simply don't understand the logic. A "boycott" is really nothing more than people sharing information about those businesses......Buy Blue could be considered a boycott site, for that matter.....whether or not to actually "boycott" those businesses is an individual choice. I do check Buy Blue occasionally -- so am I boycotting by doing that? No matter what you call it, I reserve the right not to have my money going to Republicans......or to homophobic bigots.

[Solon]

18. Why not? n/t

[Caliman73]

28. I think that the word "punishment" is muddling the concept.

I would not call it "punishment" as much as a natural consequence. If I go to a restaurant and get bad service I may not leave a tip, I may not go back for a long time if ever, I may make it a point to give the restaurant bad reviews to friends or the public. Similarly, if someone says something that is offensive to me, I may take similar actions as a consequence of their statement or actions. You can call it "punishment" if you see it that way, but I call it taking actions to make myself heard on the issue.

[el_bryanto]

37. The difference is that you are doing it as an individual

It's something else to organize a boycott. I have no issue with individuals doing it; I do have an issue with an organized boycott.

[Political Heretic]

50. Did people suddenly lose their individual choice somewhere?

An organized boycott is a group of individuals making individual decisions not to do something. Or are you suggesting that a super-natural leader is controlling the minds of other people and making them do something against their will?

No? Well then, you have a bunch of individuals freely choosing not to do something then.

[gollygee]

55. There is also the freedom of associaion and freedom of assembly

Gay people have all those rights too.

[Political Heretic]

32. Then you are suppressing my freedom of speech, expression and assembly.

[el_bryanto]

38. Not sure that works

What consequence are you suffering because I disagree with you on how these people used their freedom of speech?

On the other hand it seems pretty easy for me to point to the consequences this woman is suffering by using her freedom of speech.

Bryant

[Political Heretic]

49. This is extremely simple. In fact, my roomates 8 year old daughter gets it.

In this country, we have the right to not patronize businesses that we don't like - for whatever reason.

We have the right to speak out against businesses and tell our friends - many of us do that with businesses like Wal-Mart for example.

We have a right to protest businesses that we think or unfair, or who we think are owned by people who support injustice. I protested when Fred Phelps and the godhatesfags.com crowd came to our town to hurl hate. And I've joined local labor advocates in protesting businesses that I believe have unfair practices. All of which are my rights in this country.

We have the right to advocate our ideas and try to persuade others to join our cause.

Okay so here's the thing..... what you don't seem to get is that nowhere is it guaranteed that our right to "speech" will not impact our ability to run a business. No one is entitled to customers. When you run your own business, your customers decide whether or not they want to patronize your establishment - and they do so based on many factors, including quality of service, but also what they think of you, what you stand for, and so on.

The lady has no right to customers. On the other hand, under this constitution, and whether you think its "fair" or "right" or not, I most certainly do have the right to organize a protest against her business if I don't like the way she conducts herself.

Here's the other thing you're missing.....

I realize that you're concerned that people like poor mabel will be intimidated into not freely "speech-ing" by the speech of others. The answer is not therefore to limit the free speech rights of the protesters. The solution is to counter free speech you don't like with more free speech. Mabel is free to write op eds in the papers explaining how she is a wonderful person and "some of her very best friends are gay." She is free to get those who support her to mount and anti-boycott: making sure to eat at her place every day of the week. She's free to organize counter-protests if she feels that's helpful. She's free to write letters, put up signs, take out ads, and get sympathy in all sorts of ways.

The LA Times isn't going to find out about this story unless she calls them and pitches the angle. The entire story is written in such a way as to make her look sympathetic and great and to make the protesters look like an unreasonable blind mob - her business is probably more than secure thanks to the free advertising (we call that earned media) she just got herself. Well done Mabel.

But at the end of the day, if her community still decides that they don't want to frequent her establishment because of her homophobic beliefs, then that is the choice that they have the RIGHT to make.

How is this so fucking complicated for you to get?

[Political Heretic]

30. Yes, you are wrong.

Boycotts are free speech.

It's exercising your freedom to voice your opposition to the action or opinion of someone else by boycotting the services they provide.

It's every bit as much a protected right.

[QC]

10. Has the government tried to censor her?

If not, then your objection is absolutely irrelevant.

[el_bryanto]

12. See my comments above n/t

[mondo joe]

16. Free speech doesn't mean the right to be free from OTHER people's free speech.

She practiced hers.

The protestors are practicing theirs.

[LeftCoast]

19. She can say whatever she wants. That does NOT mean I have to spend my $ there.

Bigots have absolutely NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to my money, but I will defend her right to speak or donate to whatever cause she wants.

I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this concept.

[el_bryanto]

40. If all we were talking about is your money that would be one thing

It seems natural to me that she would lose some or many of her gay customers after her actions.

But there is also an organized boycott and public protests - that's the part that strikes me as more intimidatory.

Bryant

[LeftCoast]

45. I fail to see why you think gays and lesbians should have less right to protest than the bigots

You really need to rethink your position on this subject.

[el_bryanto]

47. I actually am based on the OP which is very thought provoking

I should make it clear that straight people who want to use boycotts to, say, get Rush Limbaugh off the air I disagree with as well (That's where most of my past experience with this debate comes from). It's the action of calling for a boycott to silence opinion that i disagree with; the boycotters sexual preference doesn't really come into it.

That said this is a bit of a different situation than the normal calls for boycotts against public figures.

Bryant

[Crunchy Frog]

23. She has the right to free speech. She doesn't have the right

to a guaranteed customer base.

[Political Heretic]

33. Further: you're wrong because your misunderstanding a couple of things.

First of all, if protesters had damaged her property - they would be in the wrong.

If they had assaulter her - they would be in the wrong.

If they had spread lies about her and her business - they would be in the wrong.


But what you don't understand is that she is not entitled to clientele. She's not entitled to a business that is successful.

The community is entitled to determine what businesses they want to support and what ones they don't. For whatever reason. And they are more than free to encourage their friends not to support certain businesses too. And obviously they are absolutely entitled to make public protests against business for any reason they wish.


It's always better when the oppressed don't fight back, isn't it?

[DireStrike]

52. Did someone deny freedom of speech?

I really don't see it here. She "speaks", others speak against her... lots of speaking going on. Nobody saying to stop speaking.

[myrna minx]

3. K&R n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Your link goes to a 'post a reply' screen for that thread

This is the link that allows you to view the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4649075&mesg_id=4649075

[2Design]

7. yes the donations against gays did throw gay lives into turmoil n/t

[nichomachus]

14. Here's what I wrote to Steve Lopez

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."

[QC]

15. Excellent letter! n/t

[LeftCoast]

24. Wonderful letter! I hope they publish it.

I was looking for letters in response to that article yesterday and couldn't find any.

[Dragonfli]

31. Well Written nt

[mondo joe]

21. When did people get the idea that free speech meant no one could respond?

That would be cozy, wouldn't it?

You say whatever you want, but no one else is allowed to respond of they're violating your rights?

[LeftCoast]

25. The strange thing is, this seems to only apply to gay people.

In no other context would the perpetrators of this sort of legal abomination be portrayed as victims.

[hfojvt]

34. I don't see the difference. Either people are free to make donations

and work for causes, or they are not.

What if this was the story. Imagine Proposition 8 had failed and now a mob of Mormons are protesting and boycotting a restaurant where the owner/manager had given $100 to an anti prop 8 group.


"She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of "for" and "against" donors. And El Coyote became a target.

A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting "shame on you" at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.

The mob left, but so did the customers.

Sections of the restaurant have been closed, a manager told me Friday during a very quiet lunch hour. Some of the 89 employees, many of them mormons, have had their hours cut, and layoffs are looming. And Christoffersen, who has taken a voluntary leave of absence, is wondering whether she'll ever again be able to work at the restaurant, which opened in 1931 (at 1st and La Brea) and is owned by her 92-year-old mother.

"It's been so hard," she said, breaking down again.


Margie tried to smooth things over last month by inviting Mormon clients to a free lunch to talk it over, but she left in tears when asked if she would write a check to the Church of Latter Day Saints."

Of course we would not be cool with that because we hold to the principle of the double-standard. If they do it, they are a$$holes. If we do it, we are righteously angry. They are bigots and we are victims. They are sub-humans and we are avenging angels.

I think I would feel differently if it was a $10,000 donation. Secondly, a boycott is a step down from a screaming mob which apparently intimidated some customers. That goes beyond free speech. Reacting like that to a mere $100 donation seems rather like an army that burns down a whole village because one villager threw a rock at you.

[Political Heretic]

35. That would be their right. Margie isn't "entitled" to a customer base.

[DireStrike]

57. That's kind of a non-sequiter

Partisans are partisans, and lots of people like being in indignant mobs.

It doesn't change the rights involved. She was free to contribute, they're free to boycott, though frankly I think they could have picked a better target. Perhaps they could even use calmer methods to better effect. Who knows, I don't have a degree in protesting or mob psychology.

I bet you this though: more lefties would agree with the rights of your hypothetical pro-hate protesters, than members of their side do with the rights of our protesters. I'm one of them.

[noiretextatique]

36. the story is already in the proper perspective

people who don't understand that would probably for proposition 10.

[supernova]

44. She was obviously quite naive

our political process. And the Mormon Church was very lax or deliberately deceiving, in not informing people that donations are public. So, you can be "outed." (heh). In that regard I feel sorry for her.

OTOH, most of her customer base and employees are gay, so... :wtf: ? You're going to vote to legally limit the lives of people who make your life possible? And then be outraged/scared when they don't want to do business with you anymore?

My head hurts.

:hurts:

[slackmaster]

48. I understand what you are trying to do with this analogy, but IMO it fails for a fundamental reason

People know quite well that skin color is not the result of a choice made by the individual who grew the skin.

There has been an ongoing, deliberate propaganda campaign by far-right religious fundamentalists to promote the notion that sexual orientation is a matter of conscious choice. A lot of people out there just haven't thought it through, and are not aware of actual scientific research that thoroughly disproves the notion that people choose to be homosexual, transgendered, etc.

I cannot accept that 52% of the people who voted in the November election in California are bigots or homophobes. I think most of them are just ignorant or have been duped by propaganda.

[wtmusic]

54. Too bad...El Coyote has unbelievable green corn tamales

and their margaritas rock too.