Oh no you didn't! (Why it's not ok to support Prop 8, then hide behind the Constitution)

Vote vs. Contribution

I just had to explain to a friend the difference between voting and contributing to a campaign.

He had the false idea that financial contributions should be secret -- like our ballots. I explained that if that were the case foreign countries like China could contribute millions to influence our elections.

When you contribute to a campaign, the voters have the right to know who you are. That's just the way it is.

People shouldn't donate to campaigns without realizing that there could be consequences. Prop. 8 will serve to educate people that if they donate to unpopular causes they could risk losing their jobs, businesses, and standing in the community.

And, if you don't think that fundie business owners aren't looking through the records to see which of their employees contributed to No on 8, you're wrong. Some people who contributed to the No on 8 campaign will lose their jobs. That's a given.

Get ready to read about an employee at a Christian publishing company or something who is forced to resign or is harrassed for a No on 8 donation.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:40:30 AM CST

Political contributions should not be a reason to be fired

If you are working for a gay magazine and you donated 1000.00 to John McCain you should not be fired.

If you are working for an accountant firm owned by a LDS member you should not get fired for donating against 8, 102 or 2.

It should be by your work and not by your extracurricular activities.

---

by: mmunson @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:01:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It depends

Say you work at a hospital. You are the PR director and your job is to promote not only the hospital, but the policies and interests of the hospital.

Then, let's say that there is a ballot measure to provide funding for hospitals in California. You donate to the opponents of that measure.

You are so freakin' FIRED!

Sometimes, our political views and our job responsibilities overlap. A conflict of interest can get you fired -- many employees have that in their contracts.

You can't work for a hospital and provide campaign contributions to a group that wants to block its funding.

An accountant doesn't promote policy. So, there would be no reason to fire that person for a contribution.

However, a director of a musical theater has to maintain good relations with the gay community. Part of his job description would be community relations. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that any theater director who alienates the gay community is toast.  

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

he wasn't fired, he resigned

while I deplore retaliating against someone for their political views this is a man who did something publicly that had the potential for significant negative impact on his employer/work place.  As Fritz notes, he didn't just vote of the measure he supported financially.  It's quite understandable that people would refrain from doing anything that would further line his coffers to enable him to donate more to hurt them.  Considering the nature of his field, he had to expect some repercussions.

Look I cringe when some celebrity shoots their mouth off and then boo-hoos when people don't want to but tickets, CDs, or people won't hire them for movies because they fear low ticket sales.  There are ramifications to speaking out and, if you're going to use a bully pulpit, you need to be prepared to take the consequences - good or bad.

---

by: ol cranky @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 13:40:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He "resigned"

It is nice that his employer gave him that option.

However, had he not resigned, I'm sure he would have been terminated.  

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 13:51:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Several points

a) You aren't describing free speech if it only flows one way. Namely, that one gets to do and say whatever one wants, but there are no reprisals for it. that's not free speech. He can donate his money where he wants. We and the company that employees him gets to decide whether they want to contribute money to speech to which they do not agree. Of all the most insideous arguments made during this whole mess, one of the most destructive is that we must support those who hate us. No we do not. A free country does not mean what you describe because what you describe is the precursor to dictatorship.

b) Free speech concepts are rightfully based on government action, not those of the private sector. You seem to confuse the two. Again, that you do so is very insideous and dangerous to freedom.

c) Your placing the word "resigned" in quotes does not impress me. Facts do. If you can't bring any facts to prove your point, then you , like the Christian right, may need to look at the nature of your argument.

Just some friendly observations about your post.

Finally, let me add this- obscure in this is a question of what is morally right.  This person was morally wrong to take money from gay people while he knew he found gay to be a moral sin. The idea that we are suppose to be sympathetic to the hypocrit is beyond my comprehension. Why exactly are we suppose to sympathetic to this guy? Because makes us better? No. It makes us worse, both practically speaking (because its our money) and morally, because it would be servicing the evil of denying human beings equality.  

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 15:58:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your placing the word "resigned" in quotes does not impress me

What makes you think I'm trying to impress you?

I'm also confused as to why you've directed a "abc" listing of impertinent points at me. Perhaps you've confused me with the author of the post. Even in that case, your tone seems inappropriately contumelious and condescending (rather than friendly).

As for your final statement regarding "morality" and sin, you overlook the principle of relativism.

Regardless, this is a practical rather than a moral issue. If Eckern did violate his own ethical standards, it is immaterial. What he did was bite the hand that feeds him.

In business, ethics are not a moral issue. They have to do with conflicts of interest and impropriety. Certainly, Eckerns "resignation" came about as a result of his no longer being able to function in his position due to a conflict between his personal and professional activities.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 16:33:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

response

a) I was not being unfriendly or conscending. blunt yes. Conscending and unfriendly no.

b) I was responding to the general thrust of the whole discussion, and just choose to posit it here , which is probably not the best of place to do so.

c) This is both a moral question (should gay people support those who do not support us when it will cause us moral harm) and practical (must a business support due to him if it does not wish to support him

d) I am not merely discussing business ethics. I am discussing wider societal concerns. Not just here but ing eneral that have been coming up in these discussions in which people will argue that one side gets to act, but essentially want to neuter their critics.

e) I am not a relativist. Bush should have taught us the danger of that.

f) the whole idea of sticking words in quotes- as per another poster coming to a similar feel of what you were doing is what causes some of the issues here.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 16:52:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry...

but I had the same impression as Fritz - that you were being condescending. In fact I was a little surprised at your tone as I think most regular blenders would agree with me that Fritz is a guy they like & respect.

Fritz noted an important point - the guy would have been fired if he hadn't resigned. Whether or not his resignation was at gunpoint is still up for speculation but, given the circumstances, I think it not unreasonable to assume that to be the case.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 18:01:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huh?

I am getting confused. How can you decide what my tone is in an online post? Especially, when I expressed in a second post what my tone was in the first post?

I do not tend to worry  about niceties, but I do not tend to look down on people. If you can point to where I am looking down on Fritz, please show me.    

It is one thing if I did not write a second post making it clear from where I am coming, but now, with the second response it seems like there is a ganging up. I am new to this website, but that does not give you an excuse to gang up.

More than that, you are not doing it over the substance of what I wrote or even my clarification, but instead, over perception.  

I did not call Fritz a name. I did not put him down. I stated my issue with his arguments as I understood them along the lines of there being something wrong with going after people who supported 8. These reasons are both practical and moral.

I think discussion of business ethics is speculation about why this guy quit, and, more importantly, would not matter because there are wider moral and practical issues with arguing one can not decide for oneself whether one wants ones money going to homophobic supporters of 8.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 18:43:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hm...

B sounds creepily like the pro-corporate-censorship Libertarian Party model of "free speech".  If the term is to have any meaning, it must apply to anyone in a position of authority, not just the state per se.  Firing someone for political beliefs, whatever the content of those beliefs, isn't something I'm going to support.

Suggesting that someone resign after making the company/organization/etc. look extremely bad in the eyes of a major constituency or customer base of that company/organization/etc., on the other hand, is another matter.

---

by: M @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 23:55:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually what I sound like is someone

who questions why I should pay this guys salary just to have your definition of free speech, which is not free speech so much as your definition. This is more than about making someone look bad. It's him taking gay dollars to support Prop 8. That's at the core of the discussion. I won't even respond to the pretense that my not wanting to pay some other guy to discriminate against me makes me a libertarian other than to say if that is now the new definition of corporatist, then sign me up for whatever label you want to call it. By your definition, no one should ever boycott anyone.

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 00:56:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Quite the contrary --

My objection was to the claim that only government actions are covered by the first amendment.  That sort of position (which is quite explicitly endorsed by the Libertarians, who are the people I hear it from most often) usually swings the other way -- it lets employers fire employees who disagree with the boss.  It's a person using their position of authority to restrict speech, even if it's not a government action.  A boycott is different: it's a group of people declining to act in favor of an institution based on the actions of that institution against the group (or its allies).  Speech is actually functionally unrelated.

---

by: M @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 22:15:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Allow some reality to penetrate your cocoon

I am a major donor to the California Musical Theatre and am acquainted with many of the wonderful people who work there.

Fact: Scott Eckern was not simply an employee, he was an officer of the not-for-profit organization.  In his role he exerted considerable influence over not only creative decisions, but hiring decisions as well.

Officers of a company are always held to a higher standard of how their off-duty actions impact the reputation of the organization.  

Scott could have discussed his intentions to make this contribution with any of the gay staff members, his lesbian sister, or even other straight people to find out how his donation would be perceived.  But he didn't, and now he has resigned, yes resigned, and CMT is moving forward without a cloud of suspicion and ill-will hanging over its head.

Oh, and according to my sources inside CMT, the loudest internal disappointment and anger with Scott was expressed NOT by gay staff, but by several straight people there.  So it's not just a "gay thing."

You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

---

by: Allan Brauer @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 16:13:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What else could he have done?

"Fact: Scott Eckern was not simply an employee, he was an officer of the not-for-profit organization."

Did they pay him a salary?

This was obviously a de facto termination. It happens every day. When people in an organization let it be known that they will not work with an executive, he or she is usually given the opportunity to resign rather face the indignity of termination.  

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 16:44:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's the law of fiduciary responsibility

If Scott Eckern, as an officer of a corporation, even a non-profit, did something that negatively affected the corporation's fiduciary standing, then the board had every right to terminate him or demand his resignation. They could not do the same to a lowly shareholder, because shareholder external activities won't affect the corporation's fiduciary standing. CMT was entirely right to kick Scott Eckern to the curb. They have an establishment to run, and when an officer's behavior and contributions wreck CMT's ability to do business, they have every right under the Uniform Commercial Code to tell him to GTFO.

Let us not confuse Scott Eckern's situation with the cubicle rat who will face harassment and retaliation from coworkers and bosses on either side. Private employees cannot be held to that standard because their "off-duty" campaign contributions do not affect the corporation's ability to do business to the extent of a corporate officer's.

The same thing can happen with Cinemark. CEO Alan Stark is a Mormon, raised in Utah, and was doing what the lds hatemongers told him to do. In return, he will no longer get the business of LGBT people and as many of our straight allies as we can convince to boycott. Whether the board of directors fires him over this will depend on how big a dent this makes in Cinemark's fiduciary well-being. If we can cause significant damage to Cinemark, the board of directors will have cause and the right under the UCC to terminate Alan Stark as CEO.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 17:18:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I do not even understand how this conversation

is all that relevant to the practical and moral questions here. I understand one can make legal questions relevant to any conversation. But business ethics and whether this person was a fiduciary seems to miss the other concerns. The real issue was "why should anyone be forced to support this guy when he is using that money to discriminate against the people paying him the money?" Why should anyone be forced to participate, as the right wingers are now arguing, in their own oppression? For that matter, why is speech to be limited to what the right wingers want to do rather than understood to mean that one can criticize the supporters of H8? Let's say this guy was only an employee. Are we saying that we can not criticize him knowing that we are in part paying his salary?

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 18:49:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was making a distinction between corporate officers and peons

Someone up thread tried to ask what will happen when a person in a lower position in the company gets harassed or fired at work because of their contribution. My point was that they shouldn't be fired for it because as an employee they don't make business decisions for the company, and they don't represent the company to the public. Totally different from people like Alan Stark and Scott Eckern. That was my only point. If you want to try to boycott EVERY business whose employees made donations as private citizens, that's your time and effort. Me, I'm sticking to the companies whose officers and fiduciaries - guys who actually CONTROL the company - were donors.

If you want to boycott Cinemark and criticize Prop 8 supporters, go right ahead! Join the crowd! I've already called for a boycott on my own blog and Facebook pages amongst my own friends. Heck, the owner of a major florist here in Hawaii donated $5,000, and the community here is boycotting his business.

This is what happens when their right to free speech in the form of political donations meets our right to free speech in the form of removing our business patronage. Prop 8 supporters, welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences. Enjoy your stay.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 00:35:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

My point is that's not the main

thrust of the Prop 8 supporters position. The core issue is the lending financial support to discrimination. It just seems out of place to mainly focus on legalistic fiduiary duties argument in response to the other side arguing that we are morally wrong. I am responding to their moral argument.  

---

by: bruhrabbit3 @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:00:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Did they pay him a salary?

Yep!  According to Guidestar, he received $125,000 in 2006.  

---

by: Blood Donor @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 16:40:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks Allan for a sane response

The messiness of Democracy and a Constitution is that it always cuts two ways. We can hate the Klan, but the Constitution requires us to allow them their freedom of speech. This is the same situation.

Sott Eckern has every right to contribute to whichever politician and/or whatever cause he chooses. It's his money and his freedom.

The other side of the coin is that the people Scott needs to work with, playwrights, actors, audience, supporters, etc., also have a right to say, I'm not going to work with you because of those decisions.

Mr. Eckern could have stayed on hoping there would be enough Mormon support to off-set whatever other support was lost, but he elected to resign instead.

The problem with people on the extreme right of this issue (and most issues where they force an intersection with religion) is that they expect and demand their rights, but scream about how unfair it all is when it goes the other way.

The voters spoke in Arizona several years ago. They didn't like the outcome so they circled around again. We have the right to do the same thing.

I'm sorry Mr. Eckern felt he had to give up his job, but like it or not, it is the challenge of freedom. Your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose.

---

by: bjohnm @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not simply a gay v. straight thing

Good article, but if I could expand on it a bit, I would remove the false "gay v. straight" dichotomy the author projects on to the situation.

First, in addition to several gay artists expressing concern, one of the artists who wrote a passionate letter and made Eckern's donation a national issue was the straight musical theater star Susan Egan.

Second, as a major donor to the California Musical Theatre and friend to many of its staff, it was shared with me that many of the gay employees, though very uncomfortable with Scott's choice and heartsick over the bad rap the organization received, insist that Scott is a tolerant and accepting colleague, and that some of the straight staff were among those most upset and angry with Scott.

Let's not reduce a full spectrum of color to black and white, OK?

You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

---

by: Allan Brauer @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 16:19:44 PM CST

TIME has a little blurb about being on the gay enemies list

The mag doesn't really say anything but I still came away feeling I needed a shower because I felt as though they were dinging teh gayz and their allies for utilizing the same tactics (boycott and protest) the fundies use.  Like NYT, they cite Schubet, Eckern and Bolthouse.  The truth is, I get almost weekly emails from Don Wildmon and the AFA about boycotts and calls to action against companies for offering benefits to undesirables, having anti-harassment programs and donating to the "wrong" organizations.  Fundies also disrupt business (and by saying disrupt business I mean create a barrier to access of healthcare) by protesting healthcare facilities in which contraception is prescribed and/or abortions are performed. For a time (I don't know if they still do it), these "good Christian" protesters were also videotaping people going into these facilities as a way to intimidate people.  More recently, these "good Christians" tried to use the same tools that identified those who donated against prop 8 in an effort to blackmail/extort them.  If I didn't know better, I'd think the term Christian actually means, slimy little hypocrite.

---

by: ol cranky @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 16:27:04 PM CST

I wrote a critique of that awful Time piece

At Daily Kos.  I titled it "Arson! Time Magazine and Alison Stateman Pour Gasoline on a Fire"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

---

by: Allan Brauer @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 16:28:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have been arguing with folks inside UT and in Park City

I read this one BIATCH her beads earlier...I know it's so unlike me...LOL!

She was arging for opposite sex parents, and said nobody understands the " unbelievably painful decision she had to make to adopt children"

I said PAINFUL?..... oh HELL NO!
Then I made uncertain my feelings she is the one proved to be UNFIT to Parent, and I pray for the children she is raising...hateful SHREW!

Adopting is a GIFT, and she treats it like a G*D DAMN consellation prize
SHAME ON HER!
..............
I also read a very moving UT gay philanthropist guest editorialist, who began a hungry children programs, Boys and Girls club supporter, big contributor to UT Jazz festival, and he REAMED the LDS Church.....BIGTIME!
I'll try to find the link again to this story

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 17:02:37 PM CST

here's the link to the philanthropist in UT

Bruce O. Pelenske

  http://www.parkrecord.com/lett...

the comments on this editorial is where I read the poster called ...."wow"
her beads over adoption
I use mark as my nickname in these comments...(my first name)
     http://www.topix.net/forum/sou...

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 17:14:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Peteypornpig substanciate

I googled Bruce O. Pelenske and it says something about a revocable trust in Fort Lauderdale and then it's lists the OP ed link.  Wouldn't you think that all he says he is would get reported ?  I hate gay people who make up stores.  Almost like OUT magazine.  Who is he ?  What is his business ?  Is this for real or a hoax ?  When I read the Park Record OP I thought, my hero.  Who the fuck is this guy ?

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 19:03:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

substantiate

Never mind.  This is a well meaning couple that sold their condo in Fort Lauderdale for 150K and wrote an OP ed in the Utah newspapers.  Glad I found out.  I was ready to mention him as a hero on national radio tomorrow.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 19:29:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sorry,I had no reason to check who he was

the way the newspaper made it sound as a "guest editorialist", I figured they knew he was legit.
the problem lies with that paper, not my quoting it.

I hope you can also VERIFY your claim that this is a Ft Lauderdale couple

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 19:48:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bruce O Palenske (Revocable Trust), Mike A Tompkins (Trustee)

Only know what I find on Google.  Google has no mention of him living in Utah.  I can't report the OpEd as fact until I know more.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 20:31:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

funny I found a listing in Park City for a Bruce Palenske

    http://www.google.com/search?q...
and
Pinebrook Estates Home Owners Association

BRUCE PALENSKE
(Vice President)
    http://www.pinebrookrealestate...

google searched ......Bruce Palenske, Utah

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 20:37:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's a start

It didn't come up on my search.  If you can substantiate these claims let me know by tomorrow afternoon.  Thanks

"I have volunteered and employed well over 3,000 citizens of the state of Utah, many of whom are members of the LDS church.

I am the 2001 recipient of the Children's Advocate of the Year award from the Salt Lake City Boys and Girls Club.

I have contributed more than $750,000 to the Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Salt Lake City.

I created Hungry Hearts, a campaign focused on feeding the needy of Utah, collecting some 20 tons of food for this campaign and for our community, as well as over $1,500,000 in-kind and money. In addition, former Governor of Utah Norm Bangerter declared a day of Hungry Hearts to be established.

I have contributed over $1,000,000 in-kind and money to the March of Dimes of Salt Lake City."

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 21:19:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I tried searching some of those claims and couldn't find donor's lists

prior to finding his home listing and business.
if he's vice president of a home owner's association in Park City a VERY SPENDY area of UT, he's probably quite well to do. He may have had other business ventures besides the Pinebrook company. I think asking him yourself would get you further than google searches.

his email address is on the second link you could contact him yourself.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 21:34:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

found this giving club of individual donors

Benefactor Member
Members who contribute $9,999.99 - $5,000
Annually to the Blanchard Valley Health System

Bruce Palenske & Mike Tompkins
  http://www.bvhealthsystem.org/...
I think those are the two names from Ft Lauderdale, maybe the had a second home in FL

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 21:57:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's probably checks out

Great Op Ed, one of the best I have read condeming the magic underwear political party.
Thanks Petey

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:42:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Prop 8

Look under "Utah Pizza Service, Inc."

---

by: bo28 @ Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 17:01:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bruce Pelenske

Also try correct spelling: Palenske

---

by: bo28 @ Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 17:02:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Prop *

Charles, look no further as you will find little if any on me personally.  I gave generously under company names which I owned.  I was not looking for attention, only to wake up some of the religious right.  Feel free to contact me if you want anything confirmed.

Bruce Palenske
Bo28@aol.com

---

by: bo28 @ Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 16:59:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Look for the UTAH Jazz...

Local sponsor list.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 21:26:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

..or write to Park Record.

They would not publish an editorial without an address and phone number.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 21:28:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

painful decision?

nobody understands the " unbelievably painful decision she had to make to adopt children"

If the decision to adopt was painful for her, maybe she shouldn't be a parent.  It's a painful decision to put a child up for adoption even knowing it's best for the child; the decision to adopt, like the decision to have and raise a child, is a joyful one.

Mind you, I don't see what any of that has to do with whether the parents are straight or gay

---

by: ol cranky @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 17:37:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this wow responded back to me

She was a birth mother who gave up a son to be adopted, which was her painful decision.
Nothing in her original post made it clear she wasn't the adoptive parent.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 23:13:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

whew that make MUCH more sense

---

by: ol cranky @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 16:07:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clarified

In a later post, she clarified that she meant she had to put her child up for adoption.

---

by: Stephanie @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 22:00:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

uncertain should have been in no uncertain terms....oops

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 17:03:45 PM CST

I find the notion of a homophobe working in muiscal theater hilarious

Especially a homophobe named Scott .

---

by: David Ehrenstein @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 17:13:08 PM CST

it's as funny as Mark Foley protector of children from ONLINE PREDATORS

or
Ted Haggard who would do these melodramatic Halloween HORROR HOUSES featuring decaying men with AIDS to frighten Christian children from being gay.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 17:17:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't have the big bucks, but I still spend money on things I need.

  The supp;ier of the products that I buy, I make sure the company is OK woith LGBT people.

 The supplier of a product has the right not to supply to distributers. The creator of Hair Spray decided not to have his product sold at this theater.

 Scott made his choice to support H8 with his money.  It became known that Scott was paying to have one of his suppliers' rights taken away.  That simple.
Scott realized his choice to support H8 would affect not only his income but those he worked with.  The LGBT community spoke with their wallets and purses.  It is called the power of the people.  Sometimes we have enough influence to make changes, sometimes we don't.  But never Stop Flexing your muscle because one day you will need to.

 Scott was not Fired.  His ethics in the business he was in was bad for the company.  He made the choice, the same as the El Coyote bimbo did, and now reaps what they sown.

 In a tight economy we have louder voices.  That is why I say we all need to Say No to Florida this year. By judging their vote 62% of Florida don't need our tourist dollars.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 17:59:37 PM CST

petey

I think you meant "consolation" prize... never the less, it was apt ;)
I am a musical theater actor, and starred at the music circus for several years.
Richard Lewis (the top guy) did his job. If the theater loses MONEY , the person causing it has to go. In this case it was Scott. Always look at the bottom line. That's why these boycotts will work. The "wallet is mightier than the sword."
The fundies have tried it for years (but they don't have disposable income that we do) and now they're screaming "unfair'. Tit for tat. Boo-hoo.

---

by: hank @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 20:20:55 PM CST

you're right hank...my spelling and typing are lousey

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 21:17:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Victim Card

I just love it when the Reich plays the victim card whenever anyone points out their bigotry or boycotts their business for "expressing their deeply held religious beliefs through the democratic process".

B.S.!  If they want to be a bigot or support bigoted legislation, they should be willing to accept the consequences of their views.  Bigotry shouldn't be subsidized with financial support; especially not by the discriminated clientele.  

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 20:37:41 PM CST

So called "gay rights"

I don't believe in gay rights, because I don't believe in rights just for a certain group.  I believe in human rights, and that human rights need to be extended to gays.  It's not quite the same thing.

In this US, one does not have human rights, one has constitutional rights.  Human rights apply to all people, constitutional rights to those the law decrees. Accused criminals may have their right to freedom of movement removed, but retain all others.  If they are found guilty and punished in jail, then they loss most of their rights.  Upon release, they gain many of them back, but loss their right to keep and bear arms permanently.

My point? Once homosexual behavior was decriminalized, homosexuals cease to be in the category of people who can legally have rights restricted.  A a legal citizen homosexual, not accused of any crime, and not being punished for one, is in the eyes of the Constitution, in possession of all of his rights.  As such, the 14th Amendment applies, saying that he or she must be treated as equal before the law.

Proposition 8 is an unconstitutional law forged to violate the 14th Amendment rights of legal citizens.  But apparently, thats not enough for Eckern, who wishes to remove the 1st Amendment right of freedom of assembly form homosexuals as well, who should not make decisions and act in concert.

The irony of attempting to violate the constitution, then claim it's protection to do so is truly amazing.

Besides, choosing to do business elsewhere is intimidation and harassment???  Not in a free market economy it's not.  Maybe Eckern is secret marxist as well as Christian homophobe.

---

by: truthwalker @ Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 20:51:06 PM CST

It warms my heart...

...to see these jack-asses going 'what the fuck did I do? Boo hoo."

I love consequences and accountability.

Bush is going to pardon everyone, so he will be stewing in the big house (or hiding out in Dubai) all by himself.

(Did you see the Globe cover story where they said Laura was getting $15M in the divorce? Kind of implies that Bush only got $30M for selling out our country. Doesn't seem like a lot of money for how well he did the job.)

This is moral and immoral. The moral thing, the thing that everyone knows is right inside, though some are afraid to say, is EQUALITY. Inequality is immoral.

---

by: mickdansforth @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:15:42 AM CST