- events
- /
- member info
- /
- support
- /
- shop
- /
- about us
- Become a Member
- Join Now
- Sustaining Members
- Member Benefits
- Match Your Contribution
- FAQ
- Existing Members
- Member Discounts
- Member Benefits
- Change of Address
- Tax Information
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Planned Giving
- Match Your Contribution
- Donate Stock
- Donate a Vehicle
- Become an Advocate
- Volunteer
- Become a Sponsor
- Radio Heartland
- Wonderground Radio
- Company Information
- Stations
- Public Insight Journalism
- Contact Info
- Press Room
- MPR People
- Career Opportunities
- Partners
- Educational Sponsors
- MPR Advocates Network
- Tapes & Transcripts
- Tower Rental
Protests, the arts, and the consequences of an unpopular opinion
Posted at 8:41 AM on November 13, 2008
by Bob Collins
(36 Comments)
Filed under: Arts, Politics
Where is the proper line between the lawful exercise of one's political or religious beliefs, and the acceptable penalty for that exercise? Let me save some of you some reading time. I don't know.
But the aftermath of the Proposition 8 vote in California, which banned gay marriage, is providing a suitable backdrop to ask the question and discuss it... if we dare.
National Public Radio carried a story this morning on the protests in which people who donated the money to support the measure, are now being targeted.
"El Coyote takes your gay dollar to fund gay hatred," John Dennison shouted, pacing in front of the restaurant. He's outraged that one of El Coyote's owners, a devout Mormon, reportedly gave $100 to the campaign for Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban.
In Sacramento yesterday, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater resigned after it was revealed Scott Eckern donated $1,000 to the group pushing the amendment. He, too, is a Mormon. The resignation came after Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer, said that he would not let his work be performed in the theater, according to the New York Times.
There is nothing in the Constitution that protects someone from the non-government-afflicted consequences of holding a political view, some people said in 2003. Then, however, it was the "right" staging the protest when one of the most popular musical groups at the time -- the Dixie Chicks -- made known their opposition to the war in Iraq. It cost them vital airplay on radio stations, record sales, and concert dates.
Is post-Proposition 8 that much different? Susan Egan, a Broadway actress, posted a letter on Facebook supporting the idea of boycotting Mr. Eckern's theater.
It's now a video on YouTube:
But now she's having second thoughts, the Times reported today.
"My actions have caused him harm, just as his actions caused harm to people he loved," she said. "We're all guilty."
According to the Times, she's not alone:
That sentiment was echoed by Mr. Shaiman, who said that some of the pain being felt among gay theater artists after passage of Proposition 8 has been self-inflicted.
"Our anger is against ourselves, too, that we were too compliant," he said. "It was beyond our ken that this could ever happen. But we were terribly, terribly wrong."
The constitutional questions are resolved in the courts, but the social and moral implications of holding an unpopular opinion are most often played out in the arts -- from blacklists and Pete Seeger, to the Smothers Brothers, to the Dixie Chicks, to a director of a small theater in California.
Comments (36)
That's the thing about free speech; you have the right to say what you will - and to some people speech includes political donations - but you don't get to control others' reactions. That doesn't make it right for people to boycott others for their political opinions either. It is not surprising that some of the folks doing the boycotting are having second thoughts about the appropriateness of their actions. I'm curious to know whether the people on the other side are similarly rethinking their positions.
A vital -- and oft ignored -- role of the arts is to put forward unpopular notions and ideas in a context that gets people to consider them outside of the usual noise of the day. That it's the arts community itself that is wrestling with how to to process the responsibilities associated with owning divergent views is certainly irony, and an opportunity.
One thing that has gotten horribly confused in this country over the last couple of decades is the difference between being harmed, and being offended.
Living in free country means living in a place where one will find the speech and behavior of others offensive on occasion. Living in a lawful country means that there are legal and socially acceptable ways to deal with being offended. As a general rule, one cannot respond to offense by inflicting harm. You can't respond to offensive speech by punching someone in the mouth, or threatening to kill them.
The anti-gay amendments such as those that restrict marriage by definition are a harmful response to an offense. The restriction of civil rights causes actual harm to those that are being restricted, financial harm, emotional harm, social harm. Gay and Lesbian couples are injured by restrictions placed on their ability to gain insurance benefits for instance. Those inflicting the injury on the other hand have in not in any way been harmed, they are simply offended by the gay-lesbian lifestyle.
The question is weather or not anti gay legislation/amendments (or whatever action is under consideration) are offensive or harmful? Under some limited circumstances it permissible respond to harm with harm, injury with injury. For instance if someone is causing you financial harm by not paying you money they owe, you can respond by inflicting relative harm on them via a collection agency. I think there's a case to be made in this instance that this issue starts as an harm response to an offense, and ends as a harm response to a harm.
The reason some people may feel uncomfortable with the theater example is because it seems removed from the initial harm. The artistic directors activities at the theater seem removed from his actions against gay-lesbian rights, one does not seem to have anything to do with the other. Does that make a boycott inappropriate?
At this point we have to ask weather or not the artistic director is entitled to be shielded from consequences for his actions outside of the theater, and shielded form whom? Certainly he deserves some shielding from actions by his employers, the government, or the theater itself for a variety of reasons. But should he be somehow shielded from the patrons? Should actors and actresses be required to do work that benefits someone who has harmed or offended them? Should patrons be required to buy tickets at a theater with a director that has harmed or offended them? Clearly not.
I think in this case no undue or inappropriate harm was inflicted on the director. His actions went beyond offensive behavior and resulted in harm. It is encouraging however to be reminded that decent human beings still regret certain actions, even if they were justified or appropriate. Doing the right thing, and doing the comfortable thing, are not always the same thing.
I am deeply troubled that someone who lost this election would be so mean-spirited that they would attack a fellow American for voicing their personal opinion. Shame on Shaiman! I give money each year to our community theatre and to our local high school, which far exceeds the $1,000 that Mr. Eckern gave for Prop 8. However, due to Mr. Shaiman's act, this January when they come to my home for their yearly check, I will simply have them contact Mr. Shaiman and request that money from him! How horrible it is to watch people who claim that the arts should be above political bias. Perhaps Mr. Shaiman should have thought through this attack against such a good man, and the ramifications that this would bring.
//I think in this case no undue or inappropriate harm was inflicted on the director. His actions went beyond offensive behavior and resulted in harm.
But in this case "offensive behavior" was a legal contribution to a legal effort to change the law... legally. In many cases within the arts, the unpopular view is usually punished even though it was an unpopular, not illegal, act.
Another side of the coin. Has anyone seen Ron Silver get many acting gigs since he spoke at the Republican National Convention in New York?
It's a strictly bipartisan quandry. But if we apply a particular standard here, are we will to apply the same standard when a musical group is run out of the business for speaking against the war?
The left said that sent a chilling of censorship. Did it? Is that a problem? Especially in the context of a debate over rights and freedoms, if one is guided by the penalty for engaging -- legally --in the political process , does one still have freedom and we generally define it?
Bob,
I'm not totally sure about the equivalence of the entire Dixie Chicks situation with the current situation around Prop 8. What smacked of censorship to me wasn't the people out protesting concerts, burning records, etc. The feeling of censorship came because radio DJ's don't make their own playlists, and it became a corporate decision not to play their music. Was that simply a business responding to a changing marketplace? Maybe. But that leads us into a larger discussion of radio and media conglomerates driving the music that gets played, gets popular, and then gets played more. That's for another place though.
Contrary to the Wall Street bailouts, we usually live in an economic system of capitalism and competition. People choose where to spend their money for a wide variety of reasons, and this doesn't seem much different than people refusing to buy Coors beer or eat Domino's pizza because of the political views of their owners.
Wasn't boycotting businesses a much-lauded technique used in the civil rights movement, and why is it any different now?
"But in this case "offensive behavior" was a legal contribution to a legal effort to change the law... legally. In many cases within the arts, the unpopular view is usually punished even though it was an unpopular, not illegal, act."
Again, to the extent that it was offensive, it is no different than any other offensive act, of course it was legal, most offensive speech and behavior is. Second, this goes beyond offense, by contributing the restriction of gay-lesbian civil rights, he is causing harm, not mere offense. A lot of harm is perfectly legal, so the legality of his actions is irrelevant. His conduct was not merely unpopular, it was harmful.
I think the idea your trying to dance with here is intolerance. Is the arts community here being intolerant? Yes it is. Of course, that just begs the questions, should the arts community or anyone else for that matter tolerate intolerance? Is it hypocritical to refuse to tolerate intolerance?
No one is entitled to popularity by the way. Popularity is a social construct that is defined by the group conferring it, not the individual pursuing it. Being unpopular and being discriminated against are not the same thing. Discrimination is a power relation, popularity is a social relation. I think it's pretty clear the boycott wasn't promoted because because this guy was unpopular. People felt harmed by his actions.
We're an information society. As long as the information that's being provided to others is accurate, I don't see an issue with sharing it, if doing so doesn't violate any laws and is not otherwise unethical.
That the spreading of such information might make the person whose action triggered the spreading of that information uncomfortable is just too damn bad.
That's the risk that person takes for saying or doing something that is, or may seem to some people to be, controversial. If you're going to support an effort to deny others' rights, you have to expect that some folks may take exception.
// of the entire Dixie Chicks situation with the current situation around Prop 8.
Let's try another one. Catholic politicians denied communion because of their position on abortion (here's an old story I did). Although it was the business between the church and its followers, many felt it was actually an attempt to influence the public vote through one's private life. Did they have a point?
In this case -- Proposition 8 -- the role of the Mormon Church is being scrutinized. Let's say, as has been reported, that it was a major backer of the Prop 8 amendment. Is a member of the church responislbe, if through his actions he/she funds the church?
Where exactly is the line? In the past, it might have been one's active involvement, now it's one's donation, it could be one's membership in a church and, conceivably, end up with being one's actual vote.
It is, I think, I question with many layers to it.
//Yes it is. Of course, that just begs the questions, should the arts community or anyone else for that matter tolerate intolerance? Is it hypocritical to refuse to tolerate intolerance?
That's not really where I'm going. First, I don't have a black and white answer. What might make sense to me on Proposition 8, doesn't make sense in similar situations where the roles are reversed. And yet, logically, it should.
In the bigger scheme of things, I'm always concerned that honest debate and discussion doesn't take place because of the threat of the consequences. Whether it's the government imprisoning someone for speaking an unpopular opinion or a person losing his livlihood, isn't the result the same?
In my ideal world, issues would get settled on the strength of the argument for them, rather than on the reluctance of people to discuss it.
In a way, I think that's what the last gentleman in the Times story was saying.
And as always, I wonder how this same dynamic looks the next time -- what is the issue and will everyone still have the same principles regardless of which side they might be on.
So the broader discussion really is: What are the limits of freedom? I'd love to talk to Pete Seeger about this.
"In this case -- Proposition 8 -- the role of the Mormon Church is being scrutinized. Let's say, as has been reported, that it was a major backer of the Prop 8 amendment. Is a member of the church responislbe, if through his actions he/she funds the church?"
Individual members are not responsible. But the church should lose tax-exempt status, if it enjoys that privilege now. Assuming it actively promoted Prop 8. At least, that's what my laymans interpretation of the law says. I would likewise lump in the church of the Bishop that publicly announced Kerry should be banned from receiving communion.
I don't get the controversy. Eckern has every right to donate money to the "Yes on 8" campaign, and I had every right to boycott CMT as long as he remained the artistic director.
In the end, so many people threatened to boycott that he chose to resign - good. That's how things work in this great country: you have the right to express your opinion, and so do I - including the right to use my dollars to counter your dollars.
Eckern did what he could to restrict and limit my rights. Now I do what I can to fight back. It's all as it should be.
Boycotting has been a great tool of protest since the bus boycotts back in the 60s - what's the problem here?
I have read a lot of comments about attempts to revoke the Momon Church's 501(c)(3) status because it encourged its members to get involved in this issue. I would warn those who promote this idea to "beware" because it will cut both ways. How many Gay foundations and similarly situated tax-exempt organizations will be prevented from speaking out on issues of fundamental importance to them? This would have a chilling effect not only on Churches, but on AIDS foundations, etc.
Be careful what you wish for . . .
>>> issues would get settled on the strength of the argument for them, rather than on the reluctance of people to discuss it.
Bingo.
Seriously, in the end did the real and implied threats to (the livelihoods of) either the Dixie Chicks or Eckern or anyone else really enlighten them to say "you know, eureka, my previous reasonings were wrong. How silly of me?" Of course not, rather, it's "I'd better lay low about this particular thing".
Not exactly a good thing for discourse. The result is muzzling, not the sharing and development of ideas. All of the discussed cases disturb me. The differences in the level is due solely to the degree of calamaty brought on by the protesting.
In and amongst all the contrasts and circular talk about civil rights, a really sobering point is being lost here. The only thing preventing this type of calamaty from happening to myself yourself or anyone else is our own arbitrary inconspicuousness. And even that could change through no fault of our own (see Jewell, Richard). Sadly, I have no idea of what a solution might entail. I am only happy that for any one person, this type of crisis is quite unlikely. Currently.
I don't think anyone would disagree that anyone has the right to boycott, the question is whether that is the right thing to do.
While thinking it through, my feelings on the issue definately depend on the politics of the ones being boycotted. It is hard to dig through my gut reaction to think about the question logically.
How can you question whether it is right for me to boycott CMT? Their artistic director not only voted to restrict my rights, he donated $1,000 to the cause!
Of course, it's right for me to boycott. It's right for you not to boycott if you agree with him, but as I strongly disagree with him, it's perfectly acceptable for me to boycott.
I don't financially support people who oppress me, and neither should you.
The thing is, we're not just talking about debate, this isn't just speech, it's action, it's public policy. One thing it is to try to persuade someone that they shouldn't get married, another is to is make it against the law. When you codify something in law you cross from the realm of persuasion into that of coercion. The artistic director didn't get hassled because he made a speech, or wrote something, or had an argument with someone. He participated in a significant way in a movement that rendered a an entire group people second class in status. That's what prop 8 is.
I used to share your concern, but then I realized that freedom is just not for the meek. It takes a certain amount of courage to be a citizen in a democracy because our words and actions have consequences. Speech without consequence is a futile endeavor. Consequences aren't a threat, their a reality woven into the fiber of existence, some call it karma. I think a world without consequences is a world where people don't really think about what the do or say. That world sounds a lot like talk radio.
By the way, there's a really really really big difference between being disappeared by the government and losing a job or having co workers threaten a boycott.
I would agree with the proposition that we should try to include as many voices as possible in public discourse, and it's nice to have an environment where people aren't afraid to speak up. Discussions should be civil, and free of threat or intimidation. But we can't shield people from the consequences of their decisions, and we all have to remember that consequences are not always proportionate.
Mark, I agree with you. I think gay people and straight people should have the same rights, and Prop 8 really saddens me. I would boycott those organizations as well because I don't agree with their positions and luckily, have the freedom to do that if I want. (Playing devil's advocate...now.) Susan Egan's stance, however, offers a bit of a different perspective:
"My actions have caused him harm, just as his actions caused harm to people he loved," she said. "We're all guilty."
It's the "kill 'em with kindness" route. Just because someone hurts you doesn't always mean you should hurt them back. I've found that sometimes this is the most effective way of dealing with animosity.
Someday our nation will look back on this time and be embarrassed.
//ow can you question whether it is right for me to boycott CMT?
I can't. Which is why I didn't. What I'm trying to do is take it out of the context in which you have a stake in the outcome -- or put it in the context in which the desired outcome is exactly the reverse -- and see if you still feel the same way about it. Maybe you do. Maybe you don't.
However, that's why I ask, for example, whether it was OK that Pete Seeger couldn't get on television for decades because of a political view he held? To try to take it out of the emotional realm and put it closer to an intellectual examination.
I'm not convinced there's a right or wrong answer on the broader question, just a process by which we examine ourselves. Brian's very honest post is enlightening. Whether it's right -- as policy -- to punish someone, depends on whether one agrees or disagrees with the person being punished.
I'm reminded of the story I told last week in which somebody should at some kids who were defacing a campaign sign. Theoretically, the proper reaction should've been "that's wrong." But the first thing people wanted to know is, "who's sign was it?"
>>Maybe you do. Maybe you don't
Point made, just saying this definitely needs to go in my list of useful tautologies.
I've said it before: On 9/11 I thought cultural relativism was dealt it's fatal blow. Boy was I wrong, and this thread is another attestment to that.
"it was OK that Pete Seeger couldn't get on television for decades because of a political view he held?"
Of course not. But I don't see what that has to do with this debate.
Corporate media censoring someone for his political views cannot be compared to individuals choosing not to financially support those who oppress them.
The latter has a long and noble history leading to much positive social change around the world. The former has an equally long and ignominious history leading to further oppression.
I don't see how anyone could compare the two.
"Corporate media censoring someone for his political views cannot be compared to individuals choosing not to financially support those who oppress them."
Bob Collins, I have to agree with Mark's observation that a large corporate media interest denying access to a performer because the corporation doesn't like the performer's politics is not remotely analogous to a situation in which individuals decide not to patronize a restaurant or a theater, because they don't like a political action taken by the owner.
I find it strange when are talking about the "private" actions of people when the government actively pepper sprayed, tear gassed, flash banged, detained and arrested for "failure to disperse" people who politically disagreed with the Republican National Convention.
I think everyone has the right to spend their dollars in ways that they find socially responsible. The difference is that we are so used to it from one small slice of the universe, that we are shocked to find that other groups are finding their economic power.
//Bob Collins, I have to agree with Mark's observation that a large corporate media interest... ..is not remotely analogous
The original point really focused on Mr. Shairman's on Ms. Egan's obviously conflicted feelings about the situation. I also asked several rather philosophical questions, none of which anyone has tried to answer.
There are larger implications of everything. But dialog in this country does not allow us to do engage in those discussions very often, because we have a difficult time separating it from an issue of the here and now.
The issue is not whether you have the right to deny a business your business and never was.
I think people have responded very thoughtfully to your questions. But they feel the comparisons you're making are inappropriate and, frankly, wrong.
Strong reactions to hate and bigotry are to be expected, and even applauded.
//the comparisons you're making are inappropriate and, frankly, wrong.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere, perhaps.
Why is the difference between my asking a question being inappropriate and being wrong?
The gentleman who was forced out of his job because he gave a political contribution: Clearly people think it was wrong of him give to the cause, but was it also inappropriate?
In many ways, now you've hit the discussion I was hoping to have. In matters of the exercise of one's legal rights, who decides what is inappropriate vs. what is wrong? And how do people not only distinguish the two in THIS case, but how do people distinguish the two when applying their own definitions to YOU?
That's the very gray area that, to me, is so interesting.
Susan Egan and Marc Shaiman have clearly thought about this and determined where that point is for each of them. What I'm looking for is not so much a verdict on what I think about comparisons, but where that point is for YOU and not only how you determine on this case, but how do you determine in other cases where you might be on the other side of the "popular" view?
Let's be clear here, Mr. Eckern's civill rights have not been violated here. However, it can be argued that he and others who supported Proposition 8 have violated the civil rights of about 4 million members of the California LGBT community and put the legal status of nearly 20,000 families in jeopardy.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to speak, worship, and vote. No where does it say that there would be no consequences exercising those rights.
No self-respecting member of the LGBT community in California or the U.S. as a whole can support any individual or organization that supported Proposition 8. That means they don't get our money, profit from our talents, or get our business. Anyone thinking otherwise is naive.
Joshua, I tend to agree. You've repeated what I'd already written in the original post. It's also the same response people gave in the Dixie Chicks case and a lot of people didn't accept that as a substitute for looking at the various scenarios of how that plays out.
In today's political environment, things are often portrayed as only two choices, partly because there end up being only two choices. But one of the things the artistic community specializes in is not muzzling the voices of opponents, but actually amplifying them to reach the same goal.
I think part of Mr. Shaiman's lament is a recognize of that missed opportunity to get off the merry go round.
I don't see anyone being muzzled here Bob. The Art Director certainly wasn't muzzled, prop 8 passed. The GLBT community wasn't muzzled. I haven't been muzzled nor have you. What merry-go-round? There is such a thing as legitimate conflict, you may not be comfortable with it, but it exists nonetheless.
Mr. Shaiman's lament is a demonstration of compassion, he's a decent human being who doesn't like to hurt people. Don't confuse that compassion with some notion that it's wrong to take action against people who have have engaged in harmful behavior because it may have a chilling effect on some discussion.
We all agree that we should defend a persons right to speak weather we agree with that speech or not. But speech can cause harm, and we can't protect people from the consequences of their speech. Speech has to be consequential in order to be productive. You can say what you want, but you are responsible for what you say. That doesn't mean you get to say: "I take responsibility" and go about your business, it means that something actually happens if you harm or offend someone. That's what happened here.
There are two sides to this issue and both sides see things through their own eyes. However, one side has run a clean and effective campaign and one side has not. One side has been persecuted and the other has not. One side fights this battle because they believe the issue can affect future generations of innocent children and one side cares more about their immediate self interest. The Mormons stood up for what the mass majority of the world today and througout all time has had as its God given and nature appointed bond to bring and raise life, without such no opposing voice could even chime. One side has lied to themselves and deliberately seeks to deceive others, because no one who has known Mormons as a whole can put hate in the same sentence with them. Mormons have stood up for the voice of people and now stand alone to be persecuted as the easiest of non retaliating targets, kind of like beating up an old lady who tells you to eat your vegetables. Mormons have shown forth nothing but love, they only oppose the very real repercussions that will come to others values and beliefs through same sex marriage. Mormons teachings are and will always be to embrace and love our brothers and sisters be it gay or straight. Each and every person who marches in front of a temple will be responsible for how gays treat Mormons in the future and responsible for the future intolerance and HATE that you support and perpetuate. The sad thing is those who know Mormons do this with the realization that the Mormons they have known have always shown love to them.
It is wrong however, that LDS members should suffer (minimal as it may be) while we represented the voice of the masses. I have an idea you may all like to hear. Since gays are a minority group in the U.S and the world, how about we take your blacklist of those who helped Prop 8 and we pull for all in favor of same sex marriage to show their support by using these individuals businesses and services whenever possible since you have tried to hurt them for expressing their opinions and civil liberties. If I was not a Mormon (an easy target since we simply ARE TAUGHT to turn the other cheek) - I may be compelled to take it a step further and influence all straight people who support 8 ,to ban doing business with gays. This can be a way those who support Prop 8 can repay Mormons for getting the victory in their stead. I think many would show their appreciation in this way as well as their dissatisfaction for how the gay movement has persecuted like a mob those who with class and LOVE have opposed them.
Mormons and hate - that is almost funny. All I can say is we love you, please don’t hit me when I tell you.
From a Mormon (Russ Miller)
I have only read bits and pieces of the many comments above, but most of the actions of GLBT and ally people in CA after the Prop 8 passage seem to me to be legal, though in some cases, very much ironic.
As a transgender person, I was stunned and upset by the passage of Prop 8, but I was furious about the response. This sort of action will get us nowhere! The progress the GLBT community has made to date has primarily come through courageous GLBT people coming out and leading normal lives, showing straight people that most of us are not the freaks we had been portrayed as. The over-the-top protest and mean-spirited actions in CA have certainly hurt the rest of us in our quest for equality annd acceptance.
I herewith give up on trying to advance the discussion past a point that wasn't in contention. Clearly we're not able to focus on larger questions and perhaps we should wait until the Prop 8 story has faded and its replaced by another issue with a similar dynamic.
"In many ways, now you've hit the discussion I was hoping to have. In matters of the exercise of one's legal rights, who decides what is inappropriate vs. what is wrong? "
Assuming this is the "question" you wanted to advance, I have to say your problem is that the question itself is incoherent.
You need to define your concepts. What do you mean by "inappropriate" and "wrong" These are not mutually exclusive terms. How can something be wrong but not inappropriate and vice-versa? I'm not saying there is no difference, but I can't discuss the difference you have in mind without knowing what you have in mind.
I am still eager for someone to show the hate in the characted, teachings or actions of Mormons???????????? Please help me here. I am also very interested in knowing how the gay community would respond if all those who support traditional marriage should respond to the gay contributors the same way they have with the Yes on Prop 8 contributors (SINGLED OUT AS MORMONS)??? Gays have the luxury of defending an action that has no consequences becuase the MORMONS once again will not retaliate because of their teaching and becasue of LOVE. This kind of reminds me of when Reginald Denny was beat half to death in the streets of L.A. all becasue he was white and of course the police offices who tragically beat Rodny King where white to. - It is amazaing the justification that is out there especially when the victims will not retaliate. HOW HUGE WOULD THE REPRECUTIONS BE IF ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORT YES ON 8 TREATED GAY BUSINESS OWNERS AND INDIVIDUALS THE SAME WAY. OOH - THIS JUSTIFICATION IS RIDICULUOS.
Russ (A MORMON)
Appropriate does not mean "right". You need to differentiate legally acceptable socially acceptable.
So, where's the difference between where Elizabeth gives her money and where Mr. Eckern gives his money?
Why is he treated differently, just because he's a theater director? He cannot possibly be the only theater employee in the state of California who donated money to the campaign.
Should you all come boycott outside of my work, because you don't like where I donated money?
At what point does my employer have an obligation to cave in to public opinion? Can she say, "the company can't operate with everyone withdrawing their orders because you work here. You're fired." After all, that's not discrimination against me for my political views -- it's simply capitalism, right?
Paul. it's probably best to revisit this question later. I have not developed the ability to process an answer to my question seeking clarification of your meaning "inappropriate" and "wrong" with an answer that asks me the same question.
Let's drop it then and revisit it later when emotions and personal stakes in the outcome aren't interfering with the potential for a high-quality discussion.
The questions aren't incoherent. They're merely unable to be separated from the emotion of the issue that spawns them. Let's come back to it in the future and see what happens. My guess is the overarching questions that have little to do with Prop 8 will still be in play at that time and can better be understood.
| November 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
Categories
- Arts
- Bridges and roads
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Floods
- Health
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Media
- News
- News Cut on Campus
- Northwest Airlines
- Pawlenty
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- The political conventions
- The Quiz
- The Unemployed series
- Things that are puzzling
- War
- Weather
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Fundraising Credentials
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock