Gay Marriage

Organic Grocery Store in Portland Gets the Brendan Eich Treatment

|

Moreland Farmers Pantry/Facebook

When is a purveyor of locally sourced produce and free-range organic meat not welcome in Portland? When it's owned by individuals who don't support marriage equality. So this is really a thing we're doing now, huh folks? 

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich's resignation has dominated online discourse for the last week or so. Eich was hit with an onslaught of public disapprobation after being outed by dating site OK Cupid as a supporter of California's now moot same sex marriage ban.

The situation in Portland is interesting because it captures a lot of the same sides and themes as the Eich story on a much smaller scale. Here's some background, from The Oregonian:

Facebook and other social media sites have exploded over a soon-to-open fresh meat and vegetable store called Moreland Farmers Pantry. Neighbors and nearby business owners, once excited by the prospect of the new shop, are now backing away.

"They're choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood," said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. "I think their personal views are going to hurt."

There's something beautiful about a man unironically pointing to a community's open-mindedness by way of explaining its commitment to shun those with different viewpoints. Another neighbor called the store's owner naive for thinking someone who doesn't believe in same sex marriage would be able to sell free-range eggs in such a tolerant neighborhood.

The Pantry's owners, husband and wife John and Chauncy Childs, are self-described Christians and libertarians who believe same-sex marriage is wrong. This came to the attention of neighborhood residents though a Facebook wall post from Chauncey. In it, Chauncey expressed some stereotypically misguided beliefs about marriage equality (that it will lead to pedophilia, etc.). She also linked to an article about the right of business owners to refuse service to gay people. 

In a telephone interview with The Oregonian, Childs said she never thought her Facebook views would become public and that they don't have anything to do with the store she's trying to open.

"We aren't discriminating," Childs said. "We have no anti-gay or anti-racial bias or anything like that. We have members of our family who are homosexual." 

But as with Mozilla's Brendan Eich—whom colleagues and employees both described as being tolerant and supportive of gay employees—the Childs' measurable or material actions don't seem to matter to detractors. Neither Eich nor the Childs believe the right things, and that is enough to get one ostracized in "open-minded" communities.

One of Moreland Farmers Pantry's neighbors, Sean O'Riordan, posted a seven-minute video to YouTube tarring the Childs and their beliefs. In it, he lamented that local children would be forced to walk by a business with discriminatory beliefs. He removed the video after Mr. Childs met with him and agreed to donate money to a local LGBT foundation. However, O'Riordan noted, he will still be boycotting the store. 

There's certaintly nothing wrong with or novel about choosing to patronize businesses you find more agreeable (for whatever reason) at the expense of those you find distasteful (for whatever reason). But poke anyone's brain hard enough and you'll likely find something with which to disagree. Do we really want a world where everything from our web browsers to where we buy our milk have to be in proper ideological alignment? At The American Conservative, Rod Drehrer makes one of the most effortless and eloquent cases as to why this is so undesirable: 

When we lived in Brooklyn, we routinely shopped at a local food store owned by Yemeni Muslim immigrants. If I had to bet, I would guess they held strongly anti-gay views, strongly anti-feminist views, and probably strongly anti-Christian views. But you know what? They were always polite to us — friendly, even — and their products were good. They were good neighbors. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

When we lived in Philly, we shopped all the time at a local organic food co-op that was fairly Portlandish in its progressivism… If they had known that they were dealing with a right-wing Christian troglodyte every time they saw me at the register buying food, it probably would have appalled them. … But you know what? They were nice and we were nice and we enjoyed sharing the same neighborhood with them. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

[…] At the Baton Rouge farmer's market, the best local milk comes from Mormon dairy farmers, and the best chicken comes from Muslim chicken farmers. You think they are pure enough for Portlandia? In my town, which is fairly conservative, some of the most beloved businesses are run by liberals, and employ gay people. Nobody cares. Nobody should care. You are a bad neighbor if you care, and not just a bad neighbor, but an asshole.

Portland business ownr Nick Zukin* made similar comments on Facebook. He asked those boycotting the Childs' store if they had researched the religious and political views of other local shop owners. "What about your dentist, your doctor, your wine vendors? It's a bad way to live," wrote Zukin. Naturally, community members announced that they'd be boycotting Zukin's business now, as well. Tolerance—or else!

Bullying "intolerant" individuals into more progressive beliefs is the wave of the future, apparently. Mind you, gay couples still can't marry in many states. "Fag" is still one of the worst insults young men can hurl at one another, violence against trans women is common, and I doubt Eich's or the Childs' views on marriage equality have shifted much. But at least everyone on Twitter is learning to signal progressivism properly! And fewer Portlandian children will be exposed to non-genetically modified ramps sold by someone with differing beliefs. Good work, modern liberalism! The world is that much safer for assholes. 

*Originally misidentified as Nick Zulkin. 

NEXT: Peter Suderman on Bobby Jindal's New Health Plan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The best way to bring this nonsense to a stop is to target activists who are pushing this noxious form of shunning.

    Unfortunately, none of them have real jobs to get them fired from.

    1. I am not a fan of tit-for-tat in general, but it is tempting to target Sam Yagan of OkCupid for his donation to an anti-gay politician.

    2. We should shun the shunners for the crime of shunning.

      1. Wouldn’t that require shunning yourself? Talk about having as existential crisis….

    3. The internet did more useful things for society than I can count or every really understand (and it’s still changing things) but one thing it did that certainly has both positives and negatives is expanding niche markets/ideas.

      This is good in that small artists without distribution channels can create followings and make money doing so.

      The downside is in the ideas market – well, really even there, it’s all upside. No more than ever there are multiple opinions presented on everything and it’s all easy to get too.

      But what we’ve seen is the vast majority of humans solely use these niche “societies” on the web to reinforce their beliefs and isolate them from any critiques.

      & so long as those communities continue to support themselves, they can force pressure on others without the normal fear of retribution as the normal paths of retribution will not work.

      Like the race baiters before them – what will work is when companies get sick of it and start pushing back in their own ways.

      Or suddenly people start understanding how bad of idea this all is in the long run…. but I’m sure if you held your breath on that one death will come first.

  2. Having different viewpoints, and donating money toward an effort to enforce your viewpoint on others through government coercion are two very different things.

    1. According to that view, you’d be OK with boycotting anyone, and trying to get them fired, based on how they voted? Because voting is the same sort of “effort to enforce your viewpoint on others through government coercion.”

      You’re free to do that, of course, but I think that in most cases you’d be an asshole if you did.

      1. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to put social pressure on people who wish to appoint others to steal or oppress in any way. If that means boycotting or even participating in civil disobedience, then so be it.

        1. I think it’s uncivil to target the career of an individual for a minor political disagreement. It’s not like Eich is a Nazi or Communist or something. There’s absolutely zero evidence that his beliefs have interfered with his job in any way, beyond the fact that obnoxious people made a stink about it.

          1. He targeted people livelihood with the intent of using force! The boycotts simply said, if you disagree with this action, don’t use his service. He voluntarily stepped down. Who was the one being uncivil?

          2. He targeted people livelihood with the intent of using force! The boycotts simply said, if you disagree with this action, don’t use his service. He voluntarily stepped down. Who was the one being uncivil?

            1. He targeted people livelihood with the intent of using force!

              Citation needed – because I thought all we had was a donation to a single group 8 years ago…

              Is there more info available to support the idea the he wanted to use force to stop people from being able to support themselves?

              & while I think it’s more than just a minor disagreement here – I still think those on the side of “screw him” really ought to consider a world in which their cherished beliefs aren’t those used to punish others.

              After all – that was only 15 years ago. Hell Obama didn’t agree until a couple years ago, but still then force Congress to act and has done nothing other than speak about his “acceptance” – yet no boycotts there….

              1. And what do you think that group did? They lobbied the government to “protect traditional marriage.” In other words, to ensure that government provided benefits to straight couples and NOT gays. If you’re ok with that, but NOT ok with people boycotting a business, you should reassess your standards. I suppose you would be against the bus boycotts during the civil rights movement as well?

  3. You know, it really is quite an imposition to expect the tolerant people of Portland to have to deal with the intolerant on a daily basis. It’s long been clear that the two groups simply aren’t able to mix. But you can’t just kick all the intolerants out, they have rights too, it’s the law!

    Obviously what Portland needs to do is create different services for exclusive use by the tolerant and intolerant. You know, you could have tolerant and intolerant bathrooms, drinking fountains, buses, that sort of thing. They’d be, um, distinct but equivalent. That way, everybody could get along with their own kind and there wouldn’t be all that–tension.

    In the name of tolerance, you know.

    1. Brilliant.

    2. “distinct but equivalent”

      Nicely done!

    3. golf clap

    4. “distinct but equivalent”
      Smiling now.

  4. Social “bullying” of this type is pretty obnoxious, but what are you going to do about it? The “bullies” aren’t using force or the government to do it; they’re just choosing to not patronize businesses or express disapproval. The only way this stops is 1) extreme fatigue for those not 100% on TEAM OUTRAGE destroys its effectiveness, or 2) social backlash against the hysterics on TEAM OUTRAGE. Or both.

    1. I didn’t realize you held this kind of horrible anti-stupid prejudice. Everyone! Boycott Epi’s posts!

      1. If only you would boycott my posts. What’s the matter, steroids make you deaf?

      2. Ya’ll don’t already?

    2. Epi makes sense. To each his own level of when to stop being tolerant. I’ll patronize a friendly store owned by a liberal, etc. etc. but if he puts a sign in the window saying Rand Paul’s the devil or libertarianism is an insane ideology, then I’ll take my business elsewhere.

      1. I think people just need to stop thinking that everyone has to think like them or they’re evil. If you can’t realize that certain people are going to have different opinions than you on things, and that that’s just part of life…you’re probably some form of sociopath who thinks the world is merely there for your amusement and therefore must conform to exactly how you want it.

        Also, I think there are certain people who just get off on putting the scarlet letter on people. These are the loudest voices of TEAM OUTRAGE.

        1. If you can’t realize that certain people are going to have different opinions than you on things, and that that’s just part of life…you’re probably some form of sociopath

          IANAPsychologist, but codependency is a much more likely diagnosis, if for no other reason than it’s everywhere. People get their self-worth wrapped up in what others think or do. That translates into a need to control others. It’s a crazy nervous compulsion rather than a cold indifference to the well-being of others.

        2. I still think you discount tribalism. In an environment where economic repression is seen a a form of justice (sanctions, for example), tribalism is seen as a form of security.

    3. Social “bullying” of this type is pretty obnoxious, but what are you going to do about it?

      Retaliate in kind. Since the game seems to be to deprive your enemies of their livelihood, I’d be delighted to return the favor to the activists who push all this.

      But, like I said above, none of them have real jobs to get fired from. Or businesses to lose.

      Funny, that.

      1. Retaliating in kind is not the answer. This kind of behavior is emotionally exhausting. If we respond in kind, that just feeds the cynical lie that we all have to be jerks to one another because everybody does it. Be happy and positive. That may not be the way to get people fired, but that’s the way to build civility.

        1. Retaliating in kind is not the answer.

          Then what? I mean if these groups continue to do this successfully and pay not outside price, then they have zero reason to stop. As a matter of fact, the trend will be obvious – they will find more things to be against and more tenuous connections – anything so they can continue to exercise their power lest the lose it.

          So while retaliation may not be seemly or easy – if they win and pay only the price of a blog posting – then expect to see more of this in the future.

          Like all bullies – either push back hard enough to make them think the cost of continuing their actions/behaviors aren’t worth it or expect it to to continue.

          As Edmund Burke stated (though that’s disputed and this is paraphrased): The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

    4. I think we should follow Rod Drehrer and just call these people assholes. Most of them know they’re being assholes. So don’t engage, don’t try to work through the logic of what they’re doing; just call them assholes.

  5. I love bacon, but I buy my gas from a station that I just discovered is owned by an Arab Jewish family. Those intolerant pig shunners just lost a loyal customer.

    1. That is nothing like the scenario being discussed…at all.

      1. No, it is. It’s boycotting on the basis of the beliefs of the owners of a business, even though those beliefs have no bearing on the products or services of the business.

      2. That is nothing like the scenario being discussed…at all.

        Yes, it is exactly like the scenario being discussed. Your move.

        1. Why is it so hard for people to understand that Eich was funding activities that sought the use of force to prevent two people from marrying? It wasn’t just his thoughts or public beliefs. He was a bigot to be sure, but the worst part was the action he took to force his bigotry on others through government coercion.

          1. Re: prattleon,

            He was a bigot to be sure, but the worst part was the action he took to force his bigotry on others through government coercion.

            Why do you call a person who believes traditional marriage is the only form of marriage that should be allowed a “bigot”?

            1. once again…donating money to a cause with the intent to deprive gays of receiving the same treatment as non-gays, is much more than a thought crime. Seems this is a hard reality for many here to swallow.

              1. Re: prattleon,

                once again…donating money to a cause with the intent to deprive gays of receiving the same treatment as non-gays, is much more than a thought crime.

                And you’re missing the point, P. What you are talking about is in reality an indictment on the initiative process which leads to laws limiting the freedoms of citizens. The fact that Brendan Eich gave money to one side of the ballot does not mean he becomes an evil person or a bigot. He’s simply donating money. There was NO guarantee that the money was going to help the ballot pass. People can do anything they want with their money. What helped the measure pass was the millions of conscious voters that voted for it. Brendan Eich was just one person.

            2. once again…donating money to a cause with the intent to deprive gays of receiving the same treatment as non-gays, is much more than a thought crime. Seems this is a hard reality for many here to swallow.

              1. Looks like the skwrlz got Tony.

              2. Are you suggesting that every Californian who voted for Prop 8 should be fired? Or only those who donated money? And if it’s only those who donated money, how is that worse than a vote?

                1. I’m not suggesting anyone do anything. But if someone wanted to stop associating with someone because they voted in favor of prop 8, that would be absolutely acceptable, and it might help to move society toward less bigotry. I’m not saying I would.

              3. Once again, everybody gets your point. Nobody is convinced.

                1. “Once again, everybody gets your point. Nobody is convinced.”

                  Great argument. We get your point but we’re not convinced and have no reasonable rebuttal. I suppose this is the level of debate I should expect from an internet forum.

              4. once again…donating money to a cause with the intent to deprive….

                Once again – donating, or worse yet, voting for Obama, means you believe non-combatants the president chooses to kill have zero rights to even life, much less the marriage of their choice.

                So, *if* you did either – you should be shunned forever. Even if only 2K grand given 8 years ago – even if your job has zero to do with it – so long as the job is public enough, you should be fired immediately.

                See how that works?

                1. I don’t believe he should be shunned forever. I think you’re blowing out of proportion what occurred. The man made an effort using his funds to have people forcefully disallowed to marry and thus not receive the same benefits as others. In response some people decided they would boycott him. That is their right to associate or not. It’s a non-violent way to puts pressure on people not to be violent. It can be abused, no doubt, but I think it was appropriate in this case. He was using government force, the boycotters were not. Like anything else, if you’re going to hold a very visible public position, don’t be a a bigot asshole, and there shouldn’t be a problem.

                  And yes, I believable people that not only vote for a particular candidate, but who participate in electoral politics at all, are complicit to some degree in every action that elected officials make. They would have no foundation upon which to make those actions without the consent, explicit or implicit, of the electorate. How people decide to associate with others is completely up to them.

                  1. I hope someday, that people will not want to do business with others who support politicians who slaughter innocent civilians with remote control planes. Right now, it’s impractical for most people, and not likely a beneficial social tool. Until then, small victories like this are great. They demonstrate the effectiveness of non-violent social pressure to stop abusive government power. And they help mold society into a more peaceful and tolerant shape.

          2. he took to force his bigotry on others through government coercion.

            Can you explain the government coercion he was supporting? You keep saying coercion and deprivation, but you don’t actually give any examples.

      3. You new here? I have a right to eat bacon, and because their religion forbids eating pork, that automatically means they don’t support my right to eat bacon. Therefore, I’m taking my business elsewhere, even though their intolerance of bacon has nothing to do with me putting gas into my car.

        1. “‘I have a right to eat bacon,””

          What?

          1. The pursuit of happiness is all about eating bacon.

          2. My body, my bacon.

        2. No, it means they don’t support* your eating bacon; it doesn’t mean they don’t support your RIGHT to eat bacon.

          I don’t support your posting non sequiturs, but I support your RIGHT to post them.

          *I don’t actually know; maybe they regard their religious prohibition as applicable only to themselves and others of their religion, and don’t give a shit about what you eat.

          1. The non sequitur-ness of the comment was what I found charming about it. To each his own, I guess.

          2. Haha, maybe I just enjoy intentionally posting non sequiturs as much as I like my bacon!

        3. You don’t have a right to eat bacon. Unless you’re Jooish or Mooslem, you have an obligation to eat bacon.

      4. The article isn’t just talking about Eich, so it kinda is.

  6. “…tereotypically misguided beliefs about marriage equality (that it will lead to pedophilia, etc.)….”

    Facts, please?

  7. There’s something beautiful about a man unironically pointing to a community’s open-mindedness by way of explaining its commitment to shun those with different viewpoints.

    We all know tolerance actually means being tolerant of the same thing we gladly tolerate.

    1. Tolerance is telling yourself how awesome you are for pretending to like people who are exactly like you, except for their skin, which is slightly darker.

      1. Tolerance is whatever they fuck they want it to mean on a given day. That’s why they can talk about being super-tolerant by being intolerant. When words mean nothing to someone, they mean anything they want.

        1. Sort of like how the concept of “equal protection” suddenly came to mean “the obvious human right to same-sex marriage and you are a bigot if you disagree.”

  8. If I ever open a store, I’ll just hang this in the window: “Here you are all equally worthless”

  9. It would rather handy to have a form for people to use when potentially transacting within their daily lives, this form would help to understand whether or not the person with whom you may interact thinks correct thoughts or not. That way, I could remain pure. It will be wonderful when every potential human interaction begins with:

    Excuse me, but I must remain politically and culturally pure, before you (change my oil, cut my hair, check my prostate, checkout my groceries) would you be so kind as to complete this short questionnaire?

    We also need to come to an agreement about a couple of things. I assume it is incorrect thinking for Christians to not favor SSM, but because of the plight of muslims and the vast discrimination they already face, it is fine for muslims to be against SSM. Is that correct? I’m trying to work out both the actual questionnaire and the scoring of it, but I’m not sure if, like paper covers rock, if muslim beats anti-SSM.

    Oh and democracy is a wonderful blessing, much more vital to our happiness than fanciful ideas of liberty and freedom. Unless of course said democracy goes against our pure political thinking, in that case, the will of the electorate should be simply ignored so that we can ensure equality and justice for all.

    1. Yes, membership in an Approved Victim Group? gets you a pass on this, at least for now. Muslims and blacks qualify, so they get a pass. Christians and Mormons, no.

  10. I’m often asked how bigotry would be curtailed in a libertarian society. This is a perfect example of just that, and many libertarians are opposed to it based on some fear of the ad-absurdum slippery slope. I’m beginning to think that many of these libertarians are actually bigots.

    1. I’m often asked how bigotry would be curtailed in a libertarian society.

      No, you aren’t. Now, shut the fuck up before the people around you notice you’re an imbecile.

      1. I’m sorry, I thought there might be a reasonable discussion in this forum. I must be in the wrong place.

        1. It usually is reasonable, but we don’t care for retards in these parts.

        2. This coming from someone who is reasonable enough to write ” I’m beginning to think that many of these libertarians are actually bigots.”

          How about you check your ad-homs at the door before bitching about “reasonable discussion.”

          1. How is that an ad-hom? I actually am beginning to think that many of the people who are so opposed to boycotting bigots are bigots themselves. Why is that so hard to believe? It’s a completely libertarian thing to do. No violence, no government — a peaceful action aimed at bringing about justice. And somehow it’s not fair to the bigot?

            1. And I happen to think that the boycotters are bigots who live in an echo-chamber, unable to tolerate a dissenting thought. However, I don’t lead with that, because I realize that it is an ad-hominem rather than a critique of the issues. Congratulations to them on not running to the Gubmint at the first opportunity. Perhaps they need to work on not being fucking hypocrites for a while. This sort of boycott is cut from the same cloth as speech codes and hate crimes. It’s not “you run your business in an unacceptable way.” Rather, it’s “you have committed a thoughtcrime, and we will use all means necessary to destroy all aspects of your life.”

              1. It was not a “thought crime”! He was actively trying to prevent people from marrying by using government force. He gave money to that cause. Why are people downplaying his actions and defending him?

                1. He was actively trying to prevent people from marrying by using government force.

                  What government force is involved in declining to license a marriage?

                  1. What government force is involved in declining to license a marriage?

                    None – though I suspect for purposes of continuity (as it cannot be based upon logic) prattleon will likely disagree.

                  2. How about the force of the cops dragging your ass out of the hospital because they won’t let you see your critically-ill partner of 10 years? Or selectively enforcing a 225 year-old cohabitation law? Or denying you child custody because the state didn’t give your relationship the stamp of approval that it gave your substance-abusing ex and his 5th wife (in six years)? Is that force enough?

                    Think of this all as blowback from a crapload of social engineering attempts by the SoCons.

                    1. How about the force of the cops dragging your ass out of the hospital because they won’t let you see your critically-ill partner of 10 years?

                      Sorry, but that’s only government force in that government is required to protect property rights and hospitals have every right to set visitation policies.

                      & is has zero to do with Mozilla’s CEO giving one donation unless you can point to his specific support of that group’s desire to pass laws forbidding gays to visit their partners.

                      & side note – a friend of mine had this exact same issue and I do think it’s despicable (though noted he should’ve said “I’m his brother”) – but what’s more despicable is taking private actions by one group, such as hospital owners/administrators and tarring a single individual with the responsibility of it solely because he gave one donation to a group which *might* agree with said policies.

                      Maybe it’s just me – but tarring people as hopelessly bigoted because of hospital visitation policies is pretty bad by itself.

                      But that’s just me – maybe you see things differently.

                    2. And custody matters and other legal disputes? Nice that you took just one example and trivialized it, but what about the rest?

                    3. Nice that you took just one example and trivialized it,

                      Okay, that was a bit catty. In all seriousness, there are areas of the law where the local, state or federal government (but especially the first two) can give you a hard time without that little seal of approval. I’m going to remember where I am and not get into all the bennies legally married couples can get from private enterprise but it’s worth mentioning.

                      The issue of marriage is just not about wanting to be liked or validated. I don’t doubt that that’s there for many but there are more important things.

                    4. The issue of marriage is just not about wanting to be liked or validated.

                      Agreed – it just has zero to do with the boycotts and therefore not what I was commenting on.

                      As it’s very possible for me to agree that gays deserve equal treatment while simultaneously disagreeing with this boycott right.

                      Just as many, maybe even you, don’t think animals should be tortured, but simultaneously don’t support PETA’s tactics.

                      Just as not supporting PETA != desire to torture animals

                      Not supporting this boycott != being bigoted

                      Your desire to make it so in order to squelch the debate and force compliance will never make it so.

                    5. And custody matters and other legal disputes? Nice that you took just one example and trivialized it, but what about the rest?

                      None of which has anything to do with any boycott.

                      Your problem here is you keep moving the goalposts and expecting me to move with them.

                      Sorry – but you’ll need to find someone else to kick around if you expect me to ask “How high?” simply because you said jump.

                      As said above – all the things you mention are problems – but has ZERO connection to the current boycott.

                      Unless you can prove those groups he donated too 8 years ago very specifically wanted gay people to never see their kids or never wanted gay people to visited loved ones in the hospital – and furthermore prove that his donation was intended to meet those ends (unless you’re also prepared to say everyone who every donated to any group must be supporting all of that group’s ends) or that they must have been given to meet those ends because the groups goals were very narrowly focused… then everything you’ve stated is 100% irrelevant to the current discussion.

                      But feel free to offer proof – then maybe all of this becomes relevant.

                      I’m just assuming since I’ve asked you twice and others on your side of this debate several times in this post alone and have gotten no proof at all, it’s likely not there.

                      But I can be wrong – just give me the proof.

                      If you have not however, your posts are nothing more than concern trolling and guilt by association. Not an honest discussion.

                    6. Unless you can prove those groups he donated too 8 years ago very specifically wanted gay people to never see their kids

                      That would have been the result. Since when do intentions matter here on Reason?

                    7. If you think I’m agreeing with what happened to Eich you’re wrong and I can prove that – just follow the comments on the linked story:

                      http://www.goodasyou.org/good_…..eller.html

                    8. Or denying you child custody because the state didn’t give your relationship the stamp of approval that it gave your substance-abusing ex and his 5th wife (in six years)? Is that force enough?

                      Yes, there’s some mystical place where drug addicted philanderers are given custody of a child over the sainted Mother.

                      Patients, not hospitals, not families, have been the ones to set approved visitor lists in most facilities for quite a few years now. Hell, here in flyover country our local hospitals don’t even have set visitor hours.

                  3. Government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all, but it is. So the cost of the benefits given to straight married couples is born by everyone including those who are refused those same benefits. They are forced to pay for things that they are not allowed to get themselves. This should be quite clear, and should be opposed by anyone who seeks justice. Allowing them equal “rights” to receive a marriage license is not perfect, but it’s far better than the current scenario.

                2. You know this article is not just about Eich, but people that have literally only committed “thoughtcrime” right?

        3. We’re ostracizing people we don’t like… the libertarian way.

          1. No! Ostracize bigots that are seeking the use of government force to prevent people from being treated the same as they are, because those people are gay.

            1. Ostracize bigots that are seeking the use of government force to prevent people…

              You keep saying this – and others seemingly agree – but no one has offered a shred of proof that the group this man donated too was seeking government redress for anything you mention.

              It’s a tenuous connection to argue an 8 year old donation to a group which doesn’t support gay marriage is the same as directly seeking government force to treat people differently.

              But I’m waiting and still willing to see all the evidence that this man is evil and that the group he supported wasn’t interested in traditional marriage definitions but instead wanted to specifically hold gay people down.

              I’m just coming quickly to the thought that no such evidence exists and your group is happy with such a tenuous connection.

              Just keep this in mind next time some other groups tars and feathers someone you support because of an 8 year old college term paper.

              1. So they just liked the number 8 and wanted to support a proposition based on a number? Connect the dots, man.

    2. Please stop talking now.

      For your reference, please google “thick liberty”

      I think I’ll curtail your idiocy by calling you an idiot. How’s that for liberty?

      1. Is this direct toward me?

        1. Yup.

          If you think you’re being reasonable by pasting people as “bigots” who are tired of politics infecting every single aspect of living, then you are an idiot. Idiot.

          1. I think you grossly misunderstood me. I’m arguing in favor of thick libertarianism.

    3. You should come over to my house. We’ll go to my basement and have a long, long, long and reasonable discussion.

    4. Re: prattleon,

      I’m often asked how bigotry would be curtailed in a libertarian society.

      The question I would ask back is: “Why would curbing bigotry be important in a libertarian society, if what is evil is legislated bigotry and not bigotry per se?”

      I’m beginning to think that many of these libertarians are actually bigots.

      As long as you leave my stuff and my life alone, you can believe anything you want, sweetheart.

      1. I’m often asked how bigotry would be curtailed in a libertarian society.

        What an easy question to answer.

        “By persuasion. Why, were you planning beat, shoot, and/or jail the bigoted? Because those are the only options not available in a libertarian society.”

      2. perhaps you remember hearing about what life was like for blacks prior to the civil rights movement. That’s why curbing bigotry is important. Sure most of that was government enforced. But a lot of it was founded on the attitudes of the people at the time.

        1. Re: prattleon,

          perhaps you remember hearing about what life was like for blacks prior to the civil rights movement.

          I heard that they were having a hard time with the Wagner act as it was.

          That’s why curbing bigotry is important.

          Really? To address historical grievances? I don’t think so. People can be racists, bigots or curmudgeons; as long as everybody treats the rights of everybody else with respect, it doesn’t matter. I am not looking to be loved by everyone, so I don’t care that there is bigotry in the world.

          Sure most of that was government enforced.

          Well, then, THAT is what is really important – curbing state-sponsored aggression. Not bigotry.

          But a lot of it was founded on the attitudes of the people at the time.

          Maybe. Who cares? You can’t compel a person to love you. As long as bigots can’t use the power of the state to harass others in their person or property, they can believe anything they want.

        2. perhaps you remember hearing about what life was like for blacks prior to the civil rights movement.

          I have no doubt that the state-sponsored and enforced bigotry of the time was quite hard on them.

          Glad we stopped doing that.

          In a libertarian society, there would be no state-sponsored and enforced bigotry, so that’s all good.

          As for the private kind, are in favor of, or opposed to, beating, jailing, and/or shooting the bigoted. If not, then non-libertarian societies offer you no new tools (that you would use) to combat bigotry.

        3. False analogy.

          Black people were treated differently because of their looks, not because of their beliefs.

          If you would have compared to, say, Mormons, you might have had a valid argument. But the fact that you couldn’t come up with an appropriate analogy means you are either stupid or your are purposely moving the goalposts.

          The subject was ostracizing people for their beliefs they hold. Which is apparently your m.o.

        4. Bigotry was the law then…

    5. This isn’t an example of anyone fighting bigotry, but instead a case of a private prosecution of thought crimes.

      1. once again…donating money to a cause with the intent to deprive gays of receiving the same treatment as non-gays, is much more than a thought crime. Seems this is a hard reality for many here to swallow.

        1. donating money to a cause with the intent to deprive gays of receiving the same treatment as non-gays,

          What treatment? I mean other than government policies that shouldn’t exist in the first place per libertarianism.

          There is no place where gays are being denied the right to enter into contracts, no place where gays are being denied the right to assign power of attorney, no place where gays are being denied the right to draw up wills, trusts, etc. Seems all the deprivation boils down to is a few minutes of paperwork that any non-married couple has to go through anyway.

          In other words, the argument is about not getting silly conveniences the government shouldn’t even be giving to heterosexual married couples.

          1. You have a very very poor understanding of what this issue is about. I’m not sure you realize the degree of insensitivity and ignorance you are emanating.

            I don’t think government should be involved in marriage at all, but it is, and the disparity it imposes between gays and non-gays is far greater than you suggest.

            1. Prattleon,
              Invisible finger has a perfect understanding of what the issue is about. Government should not be dictating anything about marriage. So based on the argument you presented, then individuals who are gay, or anyone that lobbies the state for individuals to receive preferential treatment through force of government are bigots themselves. What about individuals that are against marriage? Screw them, they don’t count? Instead of pushing for getting the government out of marriage, individuals push for special treatment in line with their views and to hell with anyone else and their liberty. They are just as guilty as anyone else looking for preferential treatment through the force of government.

        2. Once again this article is about an Oregon grocery store, not Eich.

    6. Hi Bo.

      There are always substantive considerations. Yes, the procedure here is libertarian, but the substance is weak. Using libertarian-approved means does not make the action libertarian or shield it from criticisms by libertarians.

      In my estimation, believing that gay marriage is wrong (because, say, you think God said so) is not indicative of bigotry. These are not Klan members. Their actions being boycotted do not harm anyone, even in a non-legal sense (compared to a business owner ejecting blacks). The lives of the supposed victims of their supposed bigotry will not be improved one whit by these boycotts (save the donations being shamed out of them).

    7. The perfect example is that everyone’s money is green.

      Examples like this, while perfectly libertarian, are not something to write home about.

      1. Agreed – if prattleon hadn’t showed his full hand so soon – he likely would’ve gotten nominal agreement on many here on the idea that in a libertarian society social pressure is likely to be increased (since there would be no other authority to “report” to).

        But in the end – this is about tactics to meet certain ends and just because this tactic is nominally better than government oppression does not mean that in all cases this tactic is good/useful/desired/etc.

        & of course note the obvious – it’s certainly “libertarian.ish” for groups to get together and push their beliefs through boycotts if they choose freely to do so.

        Though for prattleon/Bo and others – it appears that boycotting is libertarian.ish, but disagreeing with it is bigoted, and that’s their failure here.

        Freely boycotting may be a true “libertarian.ish” tactic, but so is openly disagreeing with any such boycott.

        Social pressure works both ways after all…

  11. The Pantry’s owners, husband and wife John and Chauncy Childs, are self-described Christians and libertarians who believe same-sex marriage is wrong.

    They should stitch big, scarlet “A”s to their clothing and walking around, just to see if anyone gets the irony.

  12. So this is really a thing we’re doing now, huh folks?

    Yes. The forced resignation of Mozilla’a CEO has opened the floodgates. Now that they know they can pressure companies into dumping CEOs they don’t like they won’t stop until it becomes impossible to become a corporate CEO without towing the proggressive lion.

    Remember when they went apeshit over Chick-Fil-A’s CEO? They kind of shut up after it became clear he wouldn’t step down. Now that they’ve gotten a win, they won’t stop.

    1. Remember when they went apeshit over Chick-Fil-A’s CEO? They kind of shut up after it became clear he wouldn’t step down. Now that they’ve gotten a win, they won’t stop.

      That’s why you don’t compromise on gun control. *looks over at CATO institute*

    2. Yes. The forced resignation of Mozilla’a CEO has opened the floodgates.

      Even before he resigned I mentioned to others that CEOs tend to have fairly strong beliefs about being the stewards of their investors’ money/assets… and as such – he may well resign himself as if this truly hurts Mozilla in any way – any CEO worth their weight in anything would recognize they need to be removed for Mozilla to move forward.

      Though whether Mozilla’s board forced him or he really forced it himself, the initiation of force came from a certain sector of society and you are absolutely right that they will use this again and again and again.

      There is zero reason to think they’ll shelve the ability to make “corporations pay” when they can do so easily and pay very little price for doing it.

      Though I will note – if they overdo it, the backlash will be quick and they will lose any power they once had as people will cease to pay attention to them.

      Of course most likely think firing a CEO of a tech company for a donation made 8 years ago – a donation made to an organization that is irrelevant to his qualifications for his job – would be consider overdoing it.

      But this is the brave new world – where boycotting 8 year old donations is ethical and even whispering disagreement makes one a bigot.

      To paraphrase Spartacus: I am Bigot!

    3. A CEO of a company is their face to the public at large, their figurehead. And when you are a company that operates so publicly and has presented itself as supporting diversity in all it’s forms, then yeah, you have a problem on your hands if your CEO has been found to have donated money (a sum that is small by big earners but a lot to most people) to a campaign that used very questionable tactics, misinformation and scary claims in order to prevent gay couples from marrying and those that were married from being recognized…You think they should have kept him? As to CFA’s CEO, he’s also the owner as it’s a privately held company, he’s changing his tune now. So, going ‘apeshit’ does produce results and change.

  13. Sean O’Riordan, posted a seven-minute video to YouTube tarring the Childs and their beliefs. In it, he lamented that local children would be forced to walk by a business with discriminatory beliefs. He removed the video after Mr. Childs met with him and agreed to donate money to a local LGBT foundation.

    Didn’t that sort of thing used to be called extortion?

    1. he lamented that local children would be forced to walk by a business with discriminatory beliefs.

      THINK OF THE CHILDRENZ!!!

      1. Ideas are like cooties, man.

      2. If he’s worried so much about children being exposed to second-hand bigotry just from walking past, I’m sure he’s picketing the local mosque on a near-constant basis.

    2. No, there’s no threat of force. It’s closer to blackmail, but it’s not really that either, since he was speaking opinions rather than facts.

  14. “They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood,” said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. “I think their personal views are going to hurt.”

    Compare and contrast the first statement in quotes, with the last.

  15. “We’re so fucking tolerant, we don’t even allow those kinds of people to LIVE here, motherfuckers!”

  16. There’s something beautiful about a man unironically pointing to a community’s open-mindedness by way of explaining its commitment to shun those with different viewpoints.

    He’s irony-impaired. Let’s move on!

    Do we really want a world where everything from our web browsers to where we buy our milk have to be in proper ideological alignment?

    In Soviet Union, Ideology aligns YOU!

  17. “‘This came to the attention of neighborhood residents though a Facebook wall post from Chauncey.”

    Wouldn’t it be fairer to say that this “came to the attention of neighborhood residents” when some political-correctness Gestapo decided to advertise and high said person’s un-correct, Verbotten views to the otherwise “Open Minded” populace, and agitate for a Pitchforks and Torches-approach rather than accept any kind of public “dialogue” about issues?

    “Childs said she never thought her Facebook views would become public and that they don’t have anything to do with the store she’s trying to open.”\

    Which is part and parcel of the whole ‘culture of acceptable lies’ which the Progs want us to live in; its the same world where Tim Cook will berate shareholders for demanding his company focus on profits, or where environmentalists will freak out and call you a ‘denier!’ when you suggest that there is any cost/benefit calculus to consider in any response to climate change, etc. You must serve the narrative first.

    I swear to god, these people will *continue* to describe themselves as “open minded” while crushing any kind of political dissent.

  18. Bullying “intolerant” individuals into more progressive beliefs is the wave of the future, apparently. Mind you, gay couples still can’t marry in many states.

    No doubt the best tactic the gay community can apply to endear itself to the public is bullying people for their personal beliefs.

    Bullying is never having to say “I’m sorry.”

    1. I don’t look at it as bullying to boycott this type of individual. I would have shopped this store. However, free speech and religion does have consequences. Before I didn’t know how this woman thought, now I do and it isn’t pretty. Why should I or others who want equality for gay couples enrich this woman’s life by giving her our business while she spouts her harmful nonsense. It isn’t that she’s against gay marriage from her religious beliefs, it’s saying it’s the gateway to pedophilia and bigamy and that businesses should be able to discriminate against gays that causes the uproar. Be against it because of your religion, the gays and their supporters couldn’t care less. However; spout that harmful crud, vote laws into being denying marriage equality in any form and in most states adoption as well, give money to those campaigns are full of lies and misinformation…yeah, she isn’t getting many customers, even in an open-minded community (hint, hint that means that there are gays in that community and they are well liked for who they are, not what they do in the privacy of their homes).

      1. I believe you that you, personally, would not object to a person’s belief if they were based on religion as opposed to the ‘harmful crud’ this woman allegedly believes – but I think you are mistaken that that is the outlook of ‘gays and their supporters’ in general. The chik-fil-a brou-ha-ha is evidence that many consider religious beliefs to be unacceptable.

  19. At least they weren’t outed by the government. It’s just some neighbors threatening to take their business elsewhere after reading their Facebook post.

  20. I also note = the progtard kulturkampf is just as un-accepting of any of the “Socially Tolerant” views of libertarians = because our “pro-gay-marriage” views and “pro-immigration” stance is completely undermined by our “shilling for corporatists and dirty energy and plutocrats” etc.

    As I noted earlier = the prog reaction to the CF piece @ the Atlantic about the “Non-Libertarian Police” was that this was Libertarians being ‘butthurt’ and making a big stink ‘over nothing’.

    That’s where they go = defending police misconduct… as being ‘no big deal’ BECAUSE libertarians complain about it. Unless you are singing their bullshit tune in perfect harmony, you’re they’re goddamn enemy.

    1. “Unless you are singing their bullshit tune in perfect harmony, you’re they’re goddamn enemy.”

      On both sides. It’s very frustrating as the kind of libertarian who generally/genuinely wants to find areas of alignment rather than divergence.

  21. Do we really want a world where everything from our web browsers to where we buy our milk have to be in proper ideological alignment?

    I gather the “thick” libertarians do. As I understand it, they believe that most people can’t be exposed to differing ideas with erupting into violence. Thus, the only way to maintain a libertarian society is to ensure that everybody believes the same thing.

    Or something. Anyone who believes every single thing should be politicized to the point of professional ruin and personal ostracism really doesn’t strike me as much of a libertarian.

    1. I have fortunately never managed to run into these people.

      Where do they hang out? It’d be interesting to observe from a safe distance.

  22. Oh, and can we quit using “marriage equality”? We’re talking about gay marriage here, so why the urge to disguise that with a euphemism? Aren’t you proud of being in favor of gay marriage? Why do you try to disguise it by using a different term?

    Its like “undocumented immigrants.” The problem isn’t that they don’t have the right paper. Its that they don’t have the legal right to be here at all. You only use euphemisms when you are trying to mislead people or hide your real intentions. Don’t do that.

    1. Why do you try to disguise it by using a different term?

      Because determining the terms used in the debate helps their side, of course.

      1. Because I feel like the most relevant part is granting gay couples the same legal rights that state-sanctioned marriage grants to straight couples, not the fact that their marriages are between gays.

        http://s102.photobucket.com/us…..g.png.html

        1. Historically speaking, marriage is an oppressive, tribal, caste-cementing concept that the West should be abandoning at all speed. As the West has recognized more and more rights and liberties of individuals, marriage has become less and less necessary and a somewhat outdated concept.

          Those who spend any effort to promote the concept of marriage (of any kind) are in fact working AGAINST liberty rather than for it.

          1. Historically speaking, marriage is an oppressive, tribal, caste-cementing concept that the West should be abandoning at all speed. As the West has recognized more and more rights and liberties of individuals, marriage has become less and less necessary and a somewhat outdated concept.

            Holy shit, that is the DUMBEST thing I’ve read in a long time.

            I, I, just don’t even know where to begin…

      2. That is why they believe in things as asinine as the “living” Constitution. If words can mean anything, then they effectively mean nothing.

    2. Oh, and can we quit using “marriage equality”?

      It would be nice, but since society for a couple decades at least has demonstrated that using the correct words can elicit very strong proponents, even if the language is a complete lie, that they will continue to do so.

      For instance – retired terrorists murder-droned at wedding parties are called “enemy combatants”. It doesn’t matter they don’t resemble any such thing, because most people don’t care to ask whether the words are appropriate.

      Same with “marriage equality” – they all full well know they do not include polygamists in their movement and could care less if they even are able to marry with the same basic rights as gay marriage – but as has been shown – most don’t care.

      They’d rather be for “marriage equality” based upon the wording alone.

    3. The good thing about “marriage equality” as terminology is that it covers both the view of elevating gay marriage to legal status as well as ending the legal status of straight marriage. Progressives are for a positive marriage equality, where I advocate a negative marriage equality.

      1. “Marriage equality” also covers polyamorous families. Poly family should have the same marriage rights as everybody else. Which is to say none beyond contract law.

  23. In it, he lamented that local children would be forced to walk by a business with discriminatory beliefs.

    AVERT YOUR EYES FROM THE UNBELIEVERS!

    1. I just can’t get over how perfectly it mirrors conservative arguments about trying to suppress anything they happen to deem immoral from public.

      “You can’t open a sex shop in this neighborhood! Children sometimes walk near there! If we allow this kids will grow up thinking it’s normal and acceptable!”

      It’d be hilarious if it wasn’t all so sad.

      1. It all reads like a bad parody.

      2. Social conservatives were the original progressives. They make the same arguments because they grow from the same roots. The schism happened only because the 2nd generation progressives immediately rejected God, and the God-fearing progressives were tossed out on their asses. What did they do? They became Sno Cones.

      3. Well, I will say I don’t want a sex shop opening up next door – but that’s what HOA’s / building codes are for (residential zoning).

        & I will say opening a sex shop is different from opening a normal retail establishment where the people who own it happen to love visiting and using things sex shops carry.

        But in general I do agree with your overall point – conservatives as well as democrats (and most independents) all agree 1000% on one basic thing – humans need to be controlled.

        They just disagree on what should be controlled and why (though in some cases, like WOD, they agree on what and why).

  24. http://www.salon.com/2014/04/0…..s_partner/

    Rand Paul’s brand of libertarian believes that “liberty” is freedom from an oppressive government. But in a democracy the government is us. The real oppressors in today’s economic and political system are the corporations which increasingly dominate all aspects of our public and private lives.

    So according to Salon Rand Paul, and by extension, libertarians “support oppression.” And an tolerant society shouldn’t tolerate such oppression right?

    1. The real oppressors in today’s economic and political system are the corporations which increasingly dominate all aspects of our public and private lives.

      I’m being oppressed by Colgate!

      1. Really the only corporation oppressing me is Comcast. Their shitty service combined with a local monopoly just blows.

    2. The real oppressors are people who won’t bake cakes for gays!!!

    3. But in a democracy the government is us.

      Did that just start in 2009? I don’t remember a lot of sympathy for the federal govt from the left for the preceding 8 years.

  25. Termination of Mozilla CEO Likely Violated California Law

    Under California law it is blatantly illegal to fire an employee because he has donated money to a political campaign. This rule is clearly set forth in Labor Code sections 1101-1102:

    ? 1101. Political activities of employees; prohibition of prevention or control by employer
    No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

    (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

    (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

    ? 1102. Coercion or influence of political activities of employees
    No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

    1. He resigned.

      1. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

        I would think that the self-criticism sessions that the vigilantes were demanding fall under this clause.

        1. Indeed.

        2. Can we stop with the hyperbole? I’ve said multiple times that he didn’t deserve the reaction he got over this, but the people boycotting Mozilla or advocating a boycott are not “thugs” or “vigilantes” for doing so.

      2. In many areas of employment law, being pressured to quit is viewed as equivalent to being fired.

    2. Ooh, I’d forgotten about this particular law.

      Wait until someone’s donation (thanks to the CA government) gets publicized, the progs boycott his company, the company fires him to appease the boycotters, and the guy who got fired sues the company.

      The govt solving a problem caused by govt in the first place.

      1. All execs have moral clauses in their contracts which basically allows firing for any public issue that could hurt the company.

        Though even if they didn’t – I doubt CEOs will go around suing their companies for being fired due to public pressure.

        Assuming they wish to work again anywhere else…

        1. All execs have moral clauses in their contracts which basically allows firing for any public issue that could hurt the company.

          Which are illegal in California and thus null and void.

    3. Eich resigned, so without proof that Mozilla asked him to step down, this isn’t even applicable.

      Furthermore, does this law protect an employee if an employer fires him/her not to influence them politically, but because their politics hurt the company? You can criticize the public outcry all you want, but the fact is that Mozilla was getting negative publicity over it.

      Lastly, this law shouldn’t exist.

      1. Most states are right to work mostly – even without those specific laws, in most states you can fire basically at will.

        This is the way it should be since employers don’t owe employees jobs and making it more difficult for companies to release people simply reduces hiring…

        But CA, NY and others have laws preventing firing without cause.

        Though as I mentioned elsewhere – execs almost always have morals clauses that would likely negate any ability to be successful in such a law suit.

        & again – the only way a CEO would sue under these circumstances is if they never wish to work as CEO again…

        1. I don’t see how this would be without cause anyways. It’s pretty easy to make an argument that his views, rightly or wrongly, negatively impacted the company and thus gave them reason to fire him (which didn’t even happen since he resigned).

  26. Dear Portland,

    Portlandia is not laughing *with* you.

  27. Portland business own[e]r Nick Zulkin made similar comments on Facebook. He asked those boycotting the Childs’ if they had researched the religious and political views of other local shop owners. “What about your dentist, your doctor, your wine vendors? It’s a bad way to live,” wrote Zulkin. Naturally, community members announced that they’d be boycotting Zulkin’s business now, as well. Tolerance?or else!

    Well, that tells you that this unfocused and haphazard show of force is nothing more than a sham. As a matter of fact, if I were any of those business owners, I would stop worrying about this boycott nonsense because it is clear the people calling for them are not serious.

    1. Note to self: Go to Mi Mero Mole, buy some tacos.

      Anyone that will boycott Nick Zukin’s (no “l”) food is a monster.

    2. Well, that tells you that this unfocused and haphazard show of force is nothing more than a sham.

      Yep – 100% BS and they don’t care. All they want to do is punish anyone with any tenuous connection to anything they disagree with as a warning to others – NEVER oppose us – lest we destroy you and your reputation by ensuring the label “bigot” is tied to you forever.

      All they care about is closing dissent as quickly as possible so they can more easily do this in the future for other things they find are “urgently needed”.

  28. Perfectly stated Elizabeth, thank you.

  29. Ugh those fuckers are stupid.

  30. With all of the real problems in this country, why are so many wasting time on these diversionary, divisive issues? It’s like listening to the pregame show of a Yankees vs Red Sox game.

    1. Bread and Circuses

    2. Excellent point – reminds me of seeing actual protesters when Case Anthony was released.

      Since I know next to nothing about the case – I don’t have any real opinion on whether she should’ve been found guilty – but I believe that was like 2008 or so… economic issues, two wars, etc, etc, etc…

      Yet dozens, I think over 100, took time out of their busy days to protest the release of one single person.

      Seemed odd to me – still does now even though the “crisis” is different – the cries of wolf are still the same.

    3. Oh, I don’t know. Let’s think about it for a moment. My gay daughter can’t get married to her partner and enjoy all the protections and benefits that marriage allows any other couple who goes down to the courthouse and pays a nominal fee. Instead, she would have to pay thousands and thousands to a lawyer to draw up documents that still wouldn’t have all those rights. Hmmmm…she works, she pays taxes, she loves her partner, she wants a family, etc… just like most heteros out there. I think it’s important. How about you give up all those rights and look to the future and decide if they were, indeed, important to you?

  31. Anyone there going to edit the new kid here? “Approbation”? Disapprobation, you twit.

    1. Insults are free, corrections require remuneration.

    2. Oh come on, the twit part wasn’t necessary.

      Fixed. Thank you.

    3. twit

      This is why we can’t have nice things.

    4. twit

      This is why we can’t have nice things.

  32. “Another neighbor called the store’s owner naive for thinking someone who doesn’t believe in same sex marriage would be able to sell free-range eggs in such a tolerant neighborhood. “

    Well, yes.

    Welcome to Portland, Comrade.

  33. Are the Childs related to Roy?

  34. This shit is bound to eventually backfire.

    Yes, people have the right to boycott anyone they want, but targetting small business owners and individuals based on their personal opinions only reinforces the stereotype of progressives as intolerant, small-minded bullies.

    They will destroy their own brand from within.

  35. Episarch uptread: I think people just need to stop thinking that everyone has to think like them or they’re evil. If you can’t realize that certain people are going to have different opinions than you on things, and that that’s just part of life…you’re probably some form of sociopath who thinks the world is merely there for your amusement and therefore must conform to exactly how you want it.

    Problem is, Epi, when we live in a system where “democracy” means that the 51% majority gets to dictate to the minority minute details of their lives, such as (for example) forcing them to pay for their employees birth control, it becomes rather paramount to have the majority agree with you. One’s private beliefs are no longer “private” when public policy is effectively a means to force people to go along with your “faith” (whether it’s religious or secular).

    If we actually lived in a society where people had real freedom of conscience, then you could leave other people alone in their private beliefs. But we don’t. In the country we actually have now, what other people think determines what you are allowed to do, and what you are forced to do. In a today’s America, bullying and ostracism is the only way to guarentee your own freedom of thought. You either impose your values by force upon others, or have other’s values imposed upon you.

    1. If only we had some sort of law that would limit the government to certain enumerated powers. A law that would supercede all other laws and be very difficult to change.

      That could provide a limit to the dangers of democracy.

      1. The Articles of Confederation were disposed of with dizzying haste, showing that pieces of paper are suboptimal for enforcing restrictions on gov’t power.

    2. Oh the shame! It’s much better to have health insurance cover Viagra for a few thousand(s) old men who can’t perform and which doesn’t provide any health benefits over birth control which provide many benefits, one being not getting pregnant, to women of all ages that number in the millions! The injustice! By the way, it doesn’t cost the company (Hobby Lobby) any more than they were paying beforehand for birth control (which they dropped right before bringing suit = hypocrites that they are). HL just doesn’t want to provide the wide variety included now.

      1. Fuck off slaver.

  36. No, no, no. You are trying to be disingenuous about the issue here. There is a big difference between Ms. Child’s Facebook postings and the examples given of business conducted with others of different faiths that probably held anti-gay views. She posted her views publicly and went far beyond saying ‘due to my religion I do not believe in same sex marriage.’ Even you, Ms. Brown, (though you tried to soften it) pointed out she said it would lead to pedophilia and other things (bigamy), and that businesses should be able to not serve gays (though Ms. Childs generously stated her business would serve everyone -after all, in a new business, every penny counts even gay pennies *said with sarcasm). The thing that allows people of different belief systems to do business together is privacy of those beliefs or greed. Ms. Childs posted her views for the world to discover. If she would have simply stated that she didn’t support same sex marriage due to her beliefs, that would have been fine. But, no, she took it much farther by including damaging comments that hold no truth as well as her support for businesses to discriminate (which she would probably do if the law allowed and she could get away with it…her comments support that supposition).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.