The poor souls who are trying to redefine a circle as a square... er, I mean repeated sodomy as "marriage"... are publishing high-dollar supporters of Proposition 8 for boycotting. Towards that end, they're publishing lists of financial supporters.
So, it seems to me, these are perfectly fine lists of businesses to patronize!
Here's one.
What's odd is that I know a local eatery named Leatherby's supported Pro 8 financially, and has been targeted. But I can't find it on any of the lists. (Let me know if you see it.)
Regardless, we plan to go out of our way and enjoy some of their fare.
Michelle Malkin offers some ironic observations about how conservatives deal with loss, versus the make-me-feel-better-about-my-perversion crowd.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
If the tantrum throwers want to boycott businesses that supported Prop 8, fine. That's their right. I just wonder if there are enough of them to make boycotts effective? Maybe in certain neighborhoods of San Francisco, but probably not in Bakersfield.
I do wonder though, about the usage of blacklists to punish prop 8 supporters in other ways.
Might someone be denied a job because of blacklisting, say? Wouldn't that invite a civil rights lawsuit? I guess only lefties whine about such things though.
You're right, of course, MM. As a rule, only lefties do that kind of whining.
To me, though, knowing that a bunch of militant, obsessive, potentially-violent folks who embrace a repulsive and unhealthy lifestyle won't be frequenting an eating establishment is more of a recommendation than not.
Someone once told me that the definition of a liberal was someone with an open mind toward anyone who held the same opinion as them.
After reading this post and the townhall column, I would like to add "open heart" to that as well.
Careful, you're this close to being thrown into the Death Camp of Tolerance.
It's been a while since I've been at a Leatherby's. I'll have to remember to check it out again someday.
To me, though, knowing that a bunch of militant, obsessive, potentially-violent folks who embrace a repulsive and unhealthy lifestyle won't be frequenting an eating establishment is more of a recommendation than not.
Really, Mr. Phillips? You know I respect you and I know you were somewhat making a joke, but that statement was in pretty bad taste. You're basically saying that knowing unrepentant gays won't be at an establishment is a good reason to go (even though it could still very well be frequented by unrepentant fornicators, drunkards, divorcees, liars, etc.)
When I mentioned in an earlier comment thread on your blog a certain level of smugness that some Christians seem to have in terms of homosexuals (repentant or not), it's statements like this that I was referring to. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it comes across.
Respectfully,
Jay
Jay,
You don't see adulterers or divorcees running around beating people up and destroying property just because someone isn't afraid to call their behaviour wrong, now do you?
I'll take a restaurant full or alcoholic adulterers over a bunch of folk who will beat my kids up because they pray anyday.
Jay
1. Please. Call me "Dan."
2. I wasn't joking at all.
3. For everyone but Jay, since Jay already knows this: I use "homosexual" to describe someone who engages in homosexual sex.
4. Note how I phrased it: "To me, though, knowing that a bunch of militant, obsessive, potentially-violent folks who embrace a repulsive and unhealthy lifestyle won't be frequenting an eating establishment is more of a recommendation than not." Did you miss that that is a specific subset of folks who practice perverted sexuality?
5. HSAT, there are many who want to create a bubble for homosexuality and its attendant miseries, and romanticize both the temptation and the practice. I've never made a secret of the fact that I regard that as a destructive lie.
6. So, while homosexuals work hard to counter any suggestion that their practices are dirty and harmful and invite many nasty diseases, I'm persuaded otherwise. So yeah, whether as a father or as an individual, when I hear that people who practice such things say, "Here's a restaurant we'll never attend," that really isn't a minus to me.
Make sense?
8. As to smugness, what does that have to do with anything? If I knew that cooks and servers weren't required to wash their hands, that'd be a minus to me, too. Does that make me smug?
#7 is a secret.
Daryl: No, but I've never seen someone shot because they were a divorcee or fired from their job because they were an adulterer, either. I know plenty of gay people that campaigned against Prop 8 (including my ex-boyfriend).
Somehow, I'm able to tell them that I think homosexuality is a sin, talk to them about the Gospel, and they actually still consider me a friend. Either I'm just extremely gifted at reaching out to this community (which I most certainly AM NOT), or maybe the fringe incidents that make the news are just that -- fringe incidents that should not be projected onto the rest of gay people.
DJP:
1. Not likely to happen. If I know someone's last name, and I don't know them well enough to call them a friend, then they get a "Mr." or "Ms." in front of their name. That's just how we do it in North Carolina. :)
2. I figured.
3. I was aware of your usage and I was using it as well (even though I don't exactly agree with it).
4. Well, I don't know if I missed it or not. Because I was under the impression that you would perceive any unrepentant homosexual as militant, obsessive, or potentially-violent. My sincere apologies if I'm mistaken. Although I would be curious about how you'd define the "militant" subset as opposed to a "non-militant" subset.
5. No, you haven't. That's fine, and we've discussed this before. However, I've also made pretty strong efforts to say that I'm not one of those people. If you don't believe that, still, then we can discuss it privately. Otherwise, it has little relevance to this conversation.
6. Wait, what? Because you'll catch HIV by going to the same restaurant as someone? I'm sorry, I really am not following you.
8. Again, because having a cook not washing his hands affects your health. Having a gay couple sitting in the booth behind you does not.
Dan,
I followed your response to Jay until #6, where it appears you contradicted #4.
Does this statement refer to homosexuals or the aforementioned "subset"?:
...when I hear that people who practice such things say, "Here's a restaurant we'll never attend," that really isn't a minus to me.
I think they're tied together by #5.
I was referring specifically to the militants who are trying to shove their perversion down society's throats, and punishing anyone who resists. But I'm saying that also, if homosexuals don't want to go to a restaurant, that in itself doesn't make it less attractive to me.
Okay I see where you're coming from there and I agree.
I would rather not have militant homosexuals where I dine, since I regard them as false teachers. I also would rather not see Kenneth Copeland smirking in my rearview mirror while in the drive-thru at Burger King.
But as for those homosexuals who are not trying to overthrow society... my dinner table is welcome to the "tax collectors and sinners". Until 4 years ago I was as lost as they!
Post a Comment