"Results of Prop 8" - Response to thread in the LDS forum (ritual, hell)

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Sorry, Mr. Spinkles, I missed this until now:

No problem!

Originally Posted by Penguin

I agree that the two cases aren't the same. I wasn't trying to present an exact parallel; I was trying to come up with examples of what might be considered in-bounds if we decided that it's acceptable for employers to fire employees for reasons unrelated to their work.

Well, not that it changes much but for the record the woman in question resigned. She was the daughter of the owner of the restaurant and one of the floor managers who interacted with the patrons. Secondly, the reason for her resignation had everything to do with work: her friends and customers were understandably outraged. The restaurant was losing a lot of business.

Originally Posted by Penguin

However, I fail to see how making a contribution to the Prop 8 campaign would reflect on a waitress' ability to serve food (she was a waitress, right? Did I mention I've only had one cup of coffee today? ).

Heh. Well we can argue about the theory 'till the cows come home, but the experiment has been done and the results are in: yes, it DOES affect your customers' experience negatively when you donate even a modest $100 to make them 2nd-class citizens. Yes, that does hurt business. And rightly so.

Like I said if this were some 'ordinary' political issue, I would agree with you.

Originally Posted by Penguin

Okay... here's another hypothetical case: many people view abortion to be the murder of a person. In their view, legalized abortion is just what you describe: it makes people unequal under the law... in the most extreme way.

Most elections, many states have some sort of ballot measure on abortion. Would it be appropriate for an employer to fire employees for making a financial contribution to a pro-choice campaign?

Now that is a good example! I.m.o. if they truly believe it is murder, that would certainly prove the power of their convictions. It seems unlikely such a tactic would be effective, but assuming it's murder, and assuming the nonviolent tactic of hiring/firing practices is effective, I think it's not only appropriate but obligatory. The answer is not to condemn the lowness of firing people who perpetuate murder, but to question whether it is certain that it really is murder.

Originally Posted by Penguin

Of course I would be angry... furious, even. However, my anger would be proportionate to the degree to which a person or group had a hand in taking away my rights. A waitress who donated $100 to the "yes on 8" campaign would be way, way down my list of priorities, well after Focus on the Family, the Knights of Columbus and the LDS Church unless I knew her personally, in which case I would probably deal with my objection to her support with her directly and not through her employer.

Of course. But it would be high on your list of priorities if it was a local restaurant and you had been friends with the person. Also, big, faceless organizations like FOF and KOC are supported by thousands of individuals like this woman--individuals who, in many cases, have gay friends. Criticize FOF all you want, FOF can take it, it's merely a symptom of the secret homophobia harbored by millions of individuals. It's the otherwise intelligent, compassionate individuals like this woman, who are shielded from facing their own bigotry, who are the problem.

One man at the woman's videotaped public apology stated, "You say you love me and you're my friend, but then you take away my civil rights. If you take away my civil rights, you are not my friend." The woman was clearly shaken by this and had to be lead away, supported by two people at her sides. It was a pathetic sight, and I truly feel sorry for the woman, but I think it was high time someone informed her of this.

Originally Posted by Penguin

If I were a customer of the restaurant where she worked, I would probably stop dealing with her personally. I might even not go into the restaurant if I thought she'd be around. However, I wouldn't try to organize a boycott of the restaurant, because if it did work, I wouldn't want the result.

As I said in the OP, I think and hope the result is this:

Notice that none of the Prop 8 supporters cited are indignant or defiant--instead they are ashamed and humiliated. None of them defends their stance, they just meekly ask forgiveness. There's a reason for that. They are coming to realize that what they thought was merely an expression of a private religious belief actually ended up taking their friends' and customers' rights away. And they feel terrible because their friends and customers are mad at them, as they should be.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

No problem!

Well, not that it changes much but for the record the woman in question resigned. She was the daughter of the owner of the restaurant and one of the floor managers who interacted with the patrons. Secondly, the reason for her resignation had everything to do with work: her friends and customers were understandably outraged. The restaurant was losing a lot of business.

I went back and read the article that Apex quoted in the DIR thread. I think my impression was a bit off: I thought she was just one of several waitresses; the article portrayed her as the "face of the restaurant" for all practical purposes. I do think that it'd be understandable for customers to avoid her, and under the circumstances, I guess that would mean not going to the restaurant at all.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Heh. Well we can argue about the theory 'till the cows come home, but the experiment has been done and the results are in: yes, it DOES affect your customers' experience negatively when you donate even a modest $100 to make them 2nd-class citizens. Yes, that does hurt business. And rightly so.

I think part of my unease in this whole thing is that I don't think it should be anyone's right to know who's making $100 donations to a political campaign. Like I've said before, I think that donations large enough to gain influence should be on the public record, but these small ones don't fit into that category.

Basically, I think the issue shouldn't have ever come up in the first place. Nobody should know which way she voted or contributed unless she chose to tell them or put up a sign.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Like I said if this were some 'ordinary' political issue, I would agree with you.

And I think that the fact that it's an extreme issue makes how we deal with it all the more important. It's relatively easy to take any stance when an issue doesn't mean that much to you; it's more difficult, and IMO more telling, when you take a stand on principle when you would have good reason not to.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Now that is a good example! I.m.o. if they truly believe it is murder, that would certainly prove the power of their convictions. It seems unlikely such a tactic would be effective, but assuming it's murder, and assuming the nonviolent tactic of hiring/firing practices is effective, I think it's not only appropriate but obligatory. The answer is not to condemn the lowness of firing people who perpetuate murder, but to question whether it is certain that it really is murder.

I think both responses are appropriate.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Of course. But it would be high on your list of priorities if it was a local restaurant and you had been friends with the person. Also, big, faceless organizations like FOF and KOC are supported by thousands of individuals like this woman--individuals who, in many cases, have gay friends. Criticize FOF all you want, FOF can take it, it's merely a symptom of the secret homophobia harbored by millions of individuals. It's the otherwise intelligent, compassionate individuals like this woman, who are shielded from facing their own bigotry, who are the problem.

If I knew her, talking to her personally would be high on my list of priorities. Boycotting the restaurant, and in the process harming all the other employees who didn't do anything to me at all, would not be.

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

One man at the woman's videotaped public apology stated, "You say you love me and you're my friend, but then you take away my civil rights. If you take away my civil rights, you are not my friend." The woman was clearly shaken by this and had to be lead away, supported by two people at her sides. It was a pathetic sight, and I truly feel sorry for the woman, but I think it was high time someone informed her of this.

Definitely. But there's a heck of a lot more to a boycott than just informing one manager. It's not like everyone who was associated with the restaurant voted "yes" on Prop 8; don't you think that the "no" votes and contributions of the other people associated with the restaurant should be taken into account before deciding to hurt it and its employees financially?

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

As I said in the OP, I think and hope the result is this:

Notice that none of the Prop 8 supporters cited are indignant or defiant--instead they are ashamed and humiliated. None of them defends their stance, they just meekly ask forgiveness. There's a reason for that. They are coming to realize that what they thought was merely an expression of a private religious belief actually ended up taking their friends' and customers' rights away. And they feel terrible because their friends and customers are mad at them, as they should be.

What was the response of the gay employees of the restaurant to this boycott? Do you think they'd consider it justified?

[Apex]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

What was the response of the gay employees of the restaurant to this boycott? Do you think they'd consider it justified?

This is what they had to say.

[She] sat on the patio with Wayne and two other El Coyote managers -- Arnoldo Archila and Bill Schoeppner -- who happen to be gay.

"We always joked around with Margie," said Schoeppner, who's been on the job 26 years. "I'm a Democrat and voted for Obama; she probably voted for McCain -- so what? If she were a bigot or a homophobe, you wouldn't have had all these gay people" working at the restaurant or eating at it.

Besides, the donation was personal.

"She didn't cut a check from the restaurant," added Archila, a 28-year employee. "The restaurant didn't have anything to do with it.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I think part of my unease in this whole thing is that I don't think it should be anyone's right to know who's making $100 donations to a political campaign.

I agree with you there.

Originally Posted by Penguin

If I knew her, talking to her personally would be high on my list of priorities. Boycotting the restaurant, and in the process harming all the other employees who didn't do anything to me at all, would not be.

They did talk to her, and she reaffirmed her "lifetime of faith" in their inequality. And the other employees were not harmed, as I understand it, because the woman resigned. As you said: it'd be understandable for customers to avoid her, and under the circumstances, I guess that would mean not going to the restaurant at all. If a restaurant owner/manager drives his/her customers away, we don't blame the customers for harming the innocent employees, we blame the manager for driving the customers away.

To take an extreme example, consider Darfur. There is no question the Save Darfur activists have harmed many innocent Sudanese government employees and civilians by encouraging large companies to divest from Sudan. Does that mean divestment is unjustifiable, or mean-spirited? Of course not.

Or consider Martin Luther King's "economic-withdrawal programs" from entire communities. Undoubtedly there were merchants and townsfolk in those communities who were harmed economically even though they supported civil rights.

Originally Posted by Penguin

Definitely. But there's a heck of a lot more to a boycott than just informing one manager. It's not like everyone who was associated with the restaurant voted "yes" on Prop 8; don't you think that the "no" votes and contributions of the other people associated with the restaurant should be taken into account before deciding to hurt it and its employees financially?

Yes I agree that should be taken into account. But again, what would it mean to "decide not to hurt it...financially"? Apparently that would entail deciding that one still enjoys eating at that restaurant. But if the fact is I don't enjoy it, it's hard to "decide" otherwise.

The real decisions that lead to this situation were the decisions of millions of voters to support discrimination.

Originally Posted by Penguin

What was the response of the gay employees of the restaurant to this boycott? Do you think they'd consider it justified?

I'm sure many of them didn't. It was certainly unfair. But out of the involved parties--the woman who supported discrimination, the society and the Church that fostered her attitudes, and finally her gay "friends" and customers who had their dignity assaulted--whose actions were "unjustified"? What would it mean to say "the boycott was unjustified"? It would mean saying the exact opposite of what you just conceded: it'd be understandable for customers to avoid her, and under the circumstances, I guess that would mean not going to the restaurant at all.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Apex

[She] sat on the patio with Wayne and two other El Coyote managers -- Arnoldo Archila and Bill Schoeppner -- who happen to be gay.

"We always joked around with Margie," said Schoeppner, who's been on the job 26 years. "I'm a Democrat and voted for Obama; she probably voted for McCain -- so what? If she were a bigot or a homophobe, you wouldn't have had all these gay people" working at the restaurant or eating at it.

Besides, the donation was personal.

"She didn't cut a check from the restaurant," added Archila, a 28-year employee. "The restaurant didn't have anything to do with it.

Yes and that's why she was obliged to resign, to spare the restaurant of the shame and betrayal that surrounds her and anyone who pretends to "love" people while insisting they are second-class citizens. She was obliged to resign; her so-called friends were not obliged to swallow their dignity.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Yes and that's why she was obliged to resign, to spare the restaurant of the shame and betrayal that surrounds her and anyone who pretends to "love" people while insisting they are second-class citizens. She was obliged to resign; her so-called friends were not obliged to swallow their dignity.

She resigned because of other people's bigotry and hatred blinded them to their stripping of another person's free speech, livelihood, and the collateral damage of a restaurants employees.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think there's a difference between simply not frequnting a business and actively boycotting it. IMO, a boycott involves a campaign to get others to take their business away, too. In the case of El Coyote, there were even apparently picket lines. These sort of practices go well beyond a customer simply taking his or her business elsewhere.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I think there's a difference between simply not frequnting a business and actively boycotting it. IMO, a boycott involves a campaign to get others to take their business away, too. In the case of El Coyote, there were even apparently picket lines. These sort of practices go well beyond a customer simply taking his or her business elsewhere.

Protesters were actually yelling at patrons going into the restaurant screaming "Shame on you".

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Apex

She resigned because of other people's bigotry and hatred blinded them to their stripping of another person's free speech, livelihood, and the collateral damage of a restaurants employees.

No, Apex. She resigned because she got caught betraying her friends and customers. Imagine if one of your friends had donated $100 to a successful campaign to make it illegal for Mormons to marry. Imagine they were horrified at the thought that their children might be taught in school that your marriage is "equal" to true Christian marriage. Run the thought-experiment.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

No, Apex. She resigned because she got caught betraying her friends and customers. Imagine if one of your friends had donated $100 to a successful campaign to make it illegal for Mormons to marry. Imagine they were horrified at the thought that their children might be taught in school that your marriage is "equal" to true Christian marriage. Run the thought-experiment.

So she got "caught"? You speak as if she did something illegal. And that was not the impression I got from the quote in the article where her gay coworkers said,

"We always joked around with Margie," said Schoeppner, who's been on the job 26 years. "I'm a Democrat and voted for Obama; she probably voted for McCain -- so what? If she were a bigot or a homophobe, you wouldn't have had all these gay people" working at the restaurant or eating at it.