DiscussMormonism.com

This ad appeared recently in the NY Times, and I think it is a good response to the Prop-8 reaction against the Church:



[url]http://www.elcoyotecafe.com/index_hi.html?detectflash=false]El Coyote[/url] is a legendary Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles that was opened by an LDS family in 1931, and continues to be owned and operated by that family today. They have been targeted by the anti-8 crowd because one of the family members (and floor managers) made a personal donation of $100 to Yes-on-8.

In penance, the restaurant has made a $5,000 donation to a local Gay/Lesbian Center, but to no avail. The protests and boycott's continue, and it is devastating the restaurant to the point that they have to lay-off long time employees. This is absurd.

cinepro wrote:El Coyote is a legendary Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles that was opened by an LDS family in 1931, and continues to be owned and operated by that family today. They have been targeted by the anti-8 crowd because one of the family members (and floor managers) made a personal donation of $100 to Yes-on-8.

In penance, the restaurant has made a $5,000 donation to a local Gay/Lesbian Center, but to no avail. The protests and boycott's continue, and it is devastating the restaurant to the point that they have to lay-off long time employees. This is absurd.

Yeah, it's absurd. Prop-8 was also absurd in my opinion. Anti-gay bigots over here, anti-religious bigots over there: now everybody looses, I guess.

Just to be clear though, is protesting and boycotting this restaurant an example of:

a) "attempting to coerce your opponents into silence"

or

b) "proper response to free speech you disagree with" and "your own free speech in reply"

?? (quotes taken from the NYT ad)

The Dude wrote:a) "attempting to coerce your opponents into silence"

or

b) "proper response to free speech you disagree with" and "your own free speech in reply"

?? (quotes taken from the NYT ad)

I don't know. I'd have to ask the anti-prop-8 employees who are being let go because of the drop in business.

cinepro wrote:I don't know. I'd have to ask the anti-prop-8 employees who are being let go because of the drop in business.

Effective free speech has consequences besides noise.

cinepro wrote:

The Dude wrote:a) "attempting to coerce your opponents into silence"

or

b) "proper response to free speech you disagree with" and "your own free speech in reply"

?? (quotes taken from the NYT ad)

I don't know. I'd have to ask the anti-prop-8 employees who are being let go because of the drop in business.

I don't know that any one was "let go" .. but rather they resigned.

The Dude wrote:Effective free speech has consequences besides noise.

There's a lot of gray between coercion and simple free speech found in, say, back and forth editorials or message boards. It seems that for free speech to effectively promote change there must be consequences, but the line between just consequences and coercion is a bit fuzzy. At times I wonder what would happen if the anti-8 crowd could have gone the Ghandi route, but then I suspect that too many in this country would be all to happy to simply let them starve to death.

Personally I wish boycotts would stick with actually punishing a buisness for having fundamentally bad goals instead of punishing it for the willingness to hire people you disagree with. There's a difference between boycotting a jewelry store that buys blood diamonds and boycotting a jewlery store because they hire republicans/democrats. Still, I'd keep it all legal even if I think boycotts should only be done for the former and not the latter. I mean there's some gray in the latter too. What if they hired racists? Me? I think racists should be able to get jobs too so long as it's obvious that their views are not the views of the company any more than an employee's religious or political views are. I probably wouldn't give a racist the time of day though.

TAK wrote:
I don't know that any one was "let go" .. but rather they resigned.

People have been let go.

I do think that the boycott of the El Coyote is way over the top, over one employee's $100 contribution. The El Coyote employees who were let go are collateral damage in this one, and it's sad.

Still, nobody is showing up at the El Coyote with crowbars and smashing the windows and furniture. They're exercising their rights as citizens to choose not to eat there. I may disagree with the fervor with which they boycott this place, but it's their right to do it. And it's the right of a bunch of homophobes to take out ads in the NYT to complain about it.

I don't think a lot of the pro-8 people really get just how hard the gays have taken this. Many gay people, even those who themselves were not interested in getting married to a fellow gay man or woman, perceive this proposition as an absolute body slam of who they are.

Pro 8 people will say hey, it was just a political dialogue, and we have the right to take part in that, and that's true, but this isn't some stupid bill about whether school buses should have to stop at railroad crossings. This was basically majority judgment of a segment of the population, that they are not approved of, and that they will not enjoy the same liberties of citizens as everyone else.

On its Newsroom site, the Church issued a statement expressing appreciation for the ad and reiterated the ad's call for supporters to add their name to the letter by providing a link to the No Mob Veto page.

From the press release:

M. Russell Ballard wrote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expresses its gratitude to the signatories of the full-page advertisement that appeared today in the New York Times. This was a thoughtful and generous gesture at a time when the right of free expression of people of faith has come under attack. We join with those of all religious faiths and political persuasions who have called for reasoned and civil discourse on matters that affect our nation.

The Dude wrote: now everybody looses, I guess.

Did you just say "looses"??