I’ll admit that I have yet to watch the Bruce Jenner interview with Diane Sawyer that is making headlines today. I am very burned out on trans issues and mostly I yawn when I hear of a news story. Even so, I have to admit that apparently, we are making progress. There’s no question that today it is easier and more acceptable to medically transition than it was when I began in 1989. Certainly, people who change their sex and legal and social gender are still pariahs, on both the left and the right – but we are more accepted than we have ever been and certainly more visible. Continue reading
At some point, people who are LGBT identified need to ask ourselves — why socialism?
“Since the 1990s, students from Mount Holyoke College, an all-women’s school in Massachusetts, have staged an annual production of The Vagina Monologues. Not this year. The college is retiring the ritual over concerns that the play—penned by Eve Ensler in 1996 as a way to “celebrate the vagina” and women’s sexuality—is not inclusive enough.
In a school-wide email from Mount Holyoke’s student-theater board, relayed by Campus Reform, student Erin Murphy explained that “at its core, the show offers an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman … Gender is a wide and varied experience, one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions, and many of us who have participated in the show have grown increasingly uncomfortable presenting material that is inherently reductionist and exclusive.” ”
Ah, OK. Apparently because some trans people have not yet had, or do not wish to have SRS (sex reassignment surgery) for whatever reason, medical or personal or financial, and this makes them different from non-trans people… so this play must be canceled.
Look I am not particularly a fan of “The Vagina Monologues” — I have never seen it and don’t possess a burning desire to do so, though I might see it if the opportunity presented itself. If it was within walking distance of my house…
Apparently, the opportunity won’t be there for anyone attending Mount Holyoke who wants to see it there. And, worse, it is for stupid reasons. Here the well-reason article in “Reason” that I learned this from:
This is so egregiously stupid that I am nearly speechless. “Inclusiveness” and even “diversity” are overrated. Not every play or performance is pertinent to every person, that’s life. Also, the vast majority of people with vaginas are born female women with female congruent gender identities. This is a fact of life, and I actually see no problem with it at all. Most likely some bullies on campus, waving the flag of PC “non-binary” gender got a hold of the board and rammed this through. That said, hey — it’s their school, whatever! I am against this on principle however. And, would certainly like to make it known that not all trans men agree with this. Also, I do live my life, day to day, identifying largely with MEN who were not born with vaginas, meaning non-trans men. In other words, someone does not have to be exactly like me to be someone I identify with. Which is good, otherwise, since I am a mixed race, man of transsexual history, who is mixed race in such a way that I have met very few people exactly like me, except for siblings, I honestly don’t think I would ever have anything at all in this world to identify with. A long time ago, I decided to be my own person, and I don’t solely depend on my race, class, ethnicity, sex or gender to define who I am. Those things are not even always the important things… I know we live in a strange world now, which increasingly says otherwise, and I am against that line of thinking, which is narrow and which puts people into boxes that are constricting — all often in the name of “inclusivity”. Of course, it is also good that more art is coming out made by so-called trans people, but that doesn’t mean that art made by people who are not “trans” has no bearing on our lives. This is insane.
Hope your Holiday season is churning along!
Things do seem to have gotten out of hand if a completely unknown individual like Justine Sacco can make a dumb and racist comment, and — lose her job. Many people make the same comments, or comments that can be construed in that way, and they don’t lose their jobs and the entire world is not exploding with outrage. Probably, few would be working if that happened, and the world would just not have time for all that outrage — which would be continuous since people say shitty things all day long if you take into account all the people in the world. I mean someone somewhere, is saying something insensitive, fat phobic, racially insensitive, vertically challenged phobic, homophobic, transphobic, or just plain retarded! Oops! There I go, I said something insensitive… Can I say “stupid”? Not sure any more. I know the term “lame” is contested in some circles. Any way… Apparently, even for an unknown, random person, social media is like a megaphone that can be heard the entire world over. Imagine her shock when she discovered that the entire WORLD was in outrage over her tweet! People apparently, just LOVE to be outraged! It makes them feel superior and morally righteous. Mob action… I am aware of this tendency but the Sacco story and others make you take pause even more deeply… It takes the fun and spontaneity out of social media. I wonder if people will get over this tendency to be outraged over every dumb tweet? Or, I guess people will just censor themselves…
Have a fantastic New Year and – try not to let the humorless, the easily put-upon, or the nutbags with an agenda get you down. Try not to stay stupid things also, but since we all do say them sometimes, at least – try not to tweet them. And, if you do, let’s hope people have some perspective but — don’t hold your breath! They probably will not.
Dear followers of Liberty Wolf,
I am shutting down the blog temporarily for a face lift! I am going to do a reorganization of my web presence, so this is the first step.
Meanwhile, check out my new Audible audiobook:
Narrated by yours truly!
Liberty Wolf will be back in time!
Meanwhile, also check out my poetry/writing/art blog Hypotenuse Wolf…
Between the Hamas and Hezbollah Huggers on the left and the gay haters on the right, it can get lonely.
Let’s call the Hamas/Hezbollah Huggers the “HHH”. And, then, there are the “gay haters” on the religious right? Are they merely strong “dislikers” of The Gay and LGBT in general?
OK, these gay “dislikers” claim they don’t hate, they just think the Gay is a “lifestyle” that can be cured or prayed into non-existence. Good luck with that.
I’m not always inclined to eschew hyperbole, but in political discourse a person must tread carefully, if he or she wishes to communicate and not simply engage in rhetorical grandstanding. But, it is hard having to hear nonsense about LGBT people on one hand, and on the other – to hear the most radically hateful torturers of gay and lesbian, and sometimes trans people lauded, often by LGBT people themselves.
But let’s start with the facts. The Christians who are anti-LGBT are easy targets. Which isn’t to say they aren’t dangerous or at least — very irritating, but they are sitting duck targets. Call them stupid, hateful and misinformed and you’ve won the day. Not only because you are right as per their views on LGBT rights and people, but also because they are now becoming easy pickings. Even prominent conservative Republicans are beginning to see that gay people have rights and can’t be prayed to straight salvation. I mean Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Rob Portman, and of course, the fighter for gay marriage — Ted Olson. So, it is easier now, with the tide turning, to ridicule the conservatives who cling to gay hating, and you can kick their imagined or real Hillbilly ways and government funded wheelchairs, as in this post:
When your godless Marxist president and his thuggish fascist cabinet officers and his entire godless liberty-hating socialist democrat party and sicko sycophant complicit leftist mainstream media and the god-hating, constitution-twisting black-robed socialist liberal activist judges continue conspiring to promote homosexualism and perversion as not only normal but a healthy, wholesome, desirable activity and way of life and then force it into the curriculum of even our youngest school children, that is tyranny!
You can, poke fun at their perceived inability to distinguish Hitler from Stalin, as some commenters on the above rant do. Certainly this will prove that you are very smart…right? But then, what do you do with the LGBT activists who are often unable to distinguish Hamas from the NAACP?
In the universe of left wing Hamas huggers, anyone who would chide Hamas and deign to point out that women in Gaza are being jailed for having out of wedlock babies, and that people who smoke Hashish are being executed, after a year in prison, are simply being “racist. Hamas and Hezbollah don’t want simple peace and a beneficial co-existence with Israel; they want Israel’s complete and utter destruction. You don’t even want to know how they kill gay people. Let’s leave it at that. These left wing sophisticates seem to want to ignore willfully, that Islam is not a race, and that the radical Islam of Hamas is anti-woman’s rights, and very much anti-gay rights. In fact, it is anti-human rights, and so anti-equality. The concept of “human rights” appears to be missing altogether from the Hamas charter; the idea that every last Jew on earth must be killed, is not.
But I can already hear the cries, the Hamas and Hezbollah Huggers screaming, “But, what about the horrible Christians!” It is true, of course, that there are indeed “horrible Christians” walking amongst us, or at least, Christians who are against gay marriage, or possibly — against even any semblance of gay rights. Most extremely, again, there are Christians who believe that lesbians and gays are “perverse”, and can be prayed to a “cure”, their numbers are dwindling, but they are around. I won’t deny it. These same Christians are most likely not friendly with transsexual people either, or transgender. They are a problem in my universe, don’t get me wrong, I have real issues with this particular Jesus fandom.
However, it is also true that some of these Christians while having reprehensible or just plain mistaken beliefs about LGBT people are otherwise, decent and good people. I know at least one online, and I have known a few in passing, I am related to a few.
Hamas and Hezbollah hugging (“HHH”) left-wingers may also otherwise be decent, intelligent and even – “educated”. Take for example, the well known and influential Hamas/Hezbollah hugger Judith Butler! That woman is obviously “educated”, she now teaches gender performativity at Columbia, but apparently still can’t distinguish Hamas/Hezbollah from social movements that are part of the progressive left. Here:
“Understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important. “
Below, a nuanced and fair denouement of Butler’s views by Michael Totten. The entire statement from Butler above is quoted and put in context, and her latter statements are also considered. Totten points out that to her credit, Butler has stated she is not in favor of violence, although, as he also points out, violence is certainly being used by the most un-socially liberal Hamas and Hezbollah to accomplish their stated goal of erasing Israel. There is no other way to eradicate a country. And, how Butler can conflate Hamas or Hezbollah with social progress is an obscure point indeed.
Butler later attempted a facile and smug de-construction of her statements with her usual rhetorical slight of hand, but I can’t help but feel cynical about her smug quibbling. To be fair, she may be denouncing violence, but she is not denouncing Hamas or Hezbollah, and she must if she is to come out on the righteous end of human history. And it is impossible to separate these two organizations from violence. Here a very good assessment of Butler’s inability to tell the good guys from the bad guys, here from writer Petra Marquardt:
“Unsurprisingly, Butler has reacted to criticism of her views regarding Hamas and Hezbollah by complaining that her remarks “have been taken out of context.” Butler mainly emphasizes now that she has “always been in favor of non-violent political action” and explicitly declares: “I do not endorse practices of violent resistance and neither do I endorse state violence, cannot, and never have.”
But it is arguably revealing that Butler chose the Mondoweiss website to publish her most recent rebuttal. Surely an academic of her standing had many other choices and did not have to turn to a site that has often been criticized for posts and as well as antisemitic cartoons? On such a site, it is somewhat strange to read Butler’s lament:
“For those of us who are descendants of European Jews who were destroyed in the Nazi genocide (my grandmother’s family was destroyed in a small village south of Budapest), it is the most painful insult and injury to be called complicitous with the hatred of Jews or to be called self-hating.”
And how come that somebody who evokes such a family history has nothing to say about the Jew-hatred espoused by Hamas and Hezbollah, and their acknowledged ideological sponsors, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime?”
Butler is not alone. There are more than a few Big Q – Queers who welcome Hamas into their bag of lefty tricks, and I regard them with as much opprobrium and bewildered angst as I regard the religious, conservative anti-LGBT right. Big Q Queers are, after all, more than simply LGBT, they regard their mission not as gay marriage or gay soldiering, but as a queer transformation of society, an in-your-face adolescent attitude that is as much uptight curmudgeon/snob and disdain of the ordinary or “normal” as it is visionary or leading edge. While I certainly believe it is important and life affirming to always be leading to the future from a place of new possibilities, the facts often lead just as often to older certainties. Sometimes Queer is a posture and a pose and not about leading us all to a better world. But again, let us distinguish between big Q Queers who wish to abolish marriage altogether, and those lesbians and gays who want the option to get married and have legal recognitions, responsibilities and rights — and who wish to lead productive lives, whether or not these lives are perceived as “in your face” or – well, normal. We can’t all be naked and polymorphous perverse in happy communes and not all of us want to be. I, for one, hate long meetings. Some of us are resigned to an LGBT normalcy that is not trend following, but often, profoundly satisfying to live. As a trans guy, I’m mostly just a normal dude. You wouldn’t think twice if you saw me on the street, and that suits me fine.
So, possibly, since they are “in your face” and hate to think of themselves as anything other than special and trendy, it is only logical that the far left Queer contingent would feign a friendly comradely relationship with the extreme and violently queer hating Hamas/Hezbollah. I mean, Hamas and Hezbollah both hate Amerikkka, and maybe, that’s enough.
Even so, I have always expected more discernment from high riding lesbians like Butler and Sarah Schulman. Schulman has been described thus by Daniel Greenfield… (she) was declaring that gay rights in Israel were part of a conspiracy to “pinkwash” the evil Zionist entity.
Sarah Schulman, a gay rights activist, had to make the confusing argument that gay rights activists should support anti-gay Islamists over Israel. And Schulman was predictably incoherent in trying to make that case. While Sarah Schulman accused pro-Israel advocates of pinkwashing Israel, Schulman was the one actually pinkwashing Hamas.
Butler, Sarah Schulman and other high visibility left wing Hamas huggers are a disappointment, a profound one. As a leftist in my not so distant past, I always had expected them to come down on the right side of human rights. But, possibly I was happily deluded. In fact, I now know for sure that I was. I mean, really now, when has the far left ever come down on the humane side of human rights? I don’t mean the moderate left of center of the Democrat party, I mean the far socialist left, and that’s why Jim from the first blog is not confabulating or confused, when he conjoins Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and Stalin – fascists and communists both in an alignment of tyrants, he’s actually absolutely correct. We can thank Jonah Goldberg’s book
Liberal Fascism for his uncovering of this similarity and conjoinment at the waist of Fascism and Communism. In hindsight, one can certain see the family resemblance.
Conflating the tyranny of National Socialism and Communism is not the sign of an uneducated, drooling rube, but of someone with more than a little common sense and possibly even, some historical acumen. If nothing else, it indicates that a person has a bedrock understanding that liberty, fascism and communism, are not bedfellows. Liberty is not aligned with communism or – fascism. Unfortunately, this simple, straightforward and utterly reasonable understanding does not extend to some of the most politically prominent if not actually astute, LGBT intellectuals. Possibly this is because ultimately, liberty is not their chief concern? It is not a core value. I think the same people who are now making positive, warm-feeling statements about Hamas would have been the same people making positive statements about Stalin. They would have declaimed Stalin as an important part of the “social movements” of the “progressive left”.
Now, this is odd, since you would think that Hamas/Hezbollah and the Christian religious right would make good bedfellows, since they are both not exactly queer friendly, however, obviously — this has not proven to be the case. I have found it confounding that the religious right hates Hamas as much as the queer left appears to embrace it. Even though Hamas and Hezbollah would happily make sure that gays are not only unmarried, but also not alive. This gave me pause; did this mean that our own religious, socially conservative right was different from what I come to believe? Well, yes, and also – no. There is a spectrum… some on that side are only critical of the use of the word “marriage” but would grant civil unions, and while not super keen on gayness or trans people are nevertheless of the understanding that LGBT people are not inherently deranged, evil or bad. Some conservatives are fine with gay people, but these cannot be understood as strict social conservatives. However, on the other hand, there are those on the religious right who don’t give two hoots about gay or trans people, make no mistake. They don’t understand us, they don’t like us, they clearly would rather we did not exist, however, they won’t join with Hamas and Hezbollah to kill us. The story is always more complicated, and in this blog I will attempt to shed the light I’ve found.
Certainly I have come to know, with some painful recognition, that the far left was different than what I had always believed. . Although there are also nuances on that side, and complications.
Complications, nuances, and deconstructions aside – the cold fact remains. Many, if not all, on the socially conservative and religious right are still in opposition to basic LGBT civil rights. The far left is infested with the HHH, Hamas/Hezbollah Huggers, who are oblivious to facts and apparently to basic human rights and liberty. Folks like me who see liberty as extending to all, and who believe in individual rights as bedrock to that fundamental liberty — have an issue. For me, neither the Hamas/Hezbollah hugging left, nor the social conservative religious right, are comfortable places to be. I remain an outlander, an outlier, and an outsider… I think both sides are nuts. And, I can’t decide which is more dangerous to my own personal mental health and peace of mind.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The new Boeing 787 Dreamliner can carry about 250 passengers. This blog was viewed about 1,700 times in 2012. If it were a Dreamliner, it would take about 7 trips to carry that many people.
So, my big coming out here, in public as not a left winger or even a Democrat is here… I was interviewed by a reporter for The Daily Beast. Of course, on a trans issue as it relates to possible Voter ID laws. Never had a problem myself with ID and voting, even when I was earlier into my transition. I think I say it best in the article, and it is toward the end.
For Max Wolf Valerio, a transgender man, the political transformation from a Democrat to a Republican was more daunting than transitioning from female to male. Valerio, author of The Testosterone Files, a memoir about his transition, said obtaining a state ID is part of every adult person’s life in the U.S. and not an additional challenge. “Trans people are not hothouse flowers who wilt at the slightest obstacle or pressure. We are resourceful, resilient, and often, extraordinarily strong people,” he said.
While I fully support educating poll workers for the possibility of trans people being ambiguous, if there are Voter ID laws established, just as they would be educated for any oddity or stray possibility, I honestly believe that this issue is being blown way out of proportion. I mean, trans people use state issued IDs for getting jobs, buying booze, entering a nightclub, traveling, picking up an airline ticket — and well, driving a car. Many things… in many states, it is not that difficult to change your F to M, if you have a note from a doctor. In some states it is a bit more difficult, and name change is more difficult. But, we manage. There are trans advocacy organizations that are fighting to make these laws more reasonable or to liberalize them. I support these efforts by and large. I do NOT agree with the trans guy, the lawyer speaking in the video, Dru Levasseur, who states that it is a “privilege” to be able to have an ID congruent with your gender, the gender or sex (actually) that you change to. If that is true, it’s news to me… Anyone who reads my memoir would know… I was mostly unemployed and certainly without savings,living hand to mouth, when I got my ID and name changed on my California State ID in 1989. And, that was way before “FTM” had any credence as hip or trendy. Things were far more difficult then. Listen, if I can do it, just about any one can. Yes, California’s laws are fairly liberal but even so… This hysteria over Voter ID, and this painting of trans people as victims, well – it doesn’t wash. I hate and despise this constant portrayal of us as weak, inept victims. We can manage to get IDs, we are adults, we’ve been doing it for a long time now…
Further, please, Democrat party, please stop using us for your ridiculous political agenda! In this case, being against people showing an ID at the polling place! It is not that big of a deal, really… trans people can manage, yes — we can! To borrow a slogan.
I say it better in the article…
It’s been some time since I posted, but bear with me dear reader, or stumbler upon, it is not as though I have not been thinking about politics. The riots in the Middle East and across the world recently in Islamic countries and parts of Europe and the UK were certainly ah, bracing. Free speech, even in the USA, is threatened as never before and the world is teetering on the precipice of WWIII as Iran makes a bee line toward nuclear weapons. If Iran attacks Israel, and they fully intend to do so, they have stated they will again and again and — again, Iran also will attack our ships in the region and bases. There you have it — the ignition of a conflict that can widen in scope and intensity like nothing we have seen since the thirties. Russia on the side of Iran along with China. And, Obama dithers on “The View” instead of meeting with Netanyahu, even if Netanyahu will go to where he is, and even though Netanyahu is requesting, with some urgency, a meeting. Obama also then refuses to meet with any leaders at the UN during its recent conference. Hillary was there to hold earnest meetings in his stead while he campaigned and appeared on Letterman, “Pimp with a Limp” and other venues. This country apologizes, again and again, through the Obama administration and straight from his lips, for that ridiculous film, for free speech, while mouthing feeble defenses of that same freedom of speech out of the other side of its mouth. The world of radical Islam hears only the apologies, and the regrets and disavowal of a silly trailer of a movie only fifteen minutes long and looking as though it were made by Ed Wood and — continues to riot and demands, along with the head of the United Nations, that free speech be curbed if it is deemed to be blasphemy.
Even some people I know are on FB calling out for stronger “hate speech” laws in this country. This, instead of defending free speech.
One of the issues that drove me from the left was the issue of free speech and “hate speech”. I remember being on blogs that were organized around certain communities, say of FTMs, and of seeing hapless folks being harassed or threatened with censure if they used certain words or phrases. Words like “lame” or phrases like “retarded question”. I have seen leftists go apoplectic over the idea that the cover of a book with King Kong on it, is somehow a racial slur and that King Kong is a stand-in for African American men. I have been told that because I am not an academic (and I can be thankful for that), I don’t “understand” how that image of the monstrous beast is connected historically and viscerally to African American males. Frankly, I think its an obscene and racist thought to even have, let alone seriously entertain, but it *is * entertained and even considered sacrosanct among the academics out there who appear to enjoy looking for images to pick out as “racist”.
And, of course, now the opposition to Obama’s presidency is — all mired and based in “racism”. Right.
The war on free speech that is happening right now, at the UN, worldwide in the press and most certainly in the academy (see speech codes on campus), is something to watch if you write, or if you wish to be able to live in a society that is not underwritten and undermined by totalitarianism. It’s that simple.
Here: <a href=”http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/120925/muslim-nations-push-international-blasphemy-law”> Muslim Nations Push for International Blasphemy Laws </a>
And, from the article:
“The United Nations, at the behest of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), will debate, once again, the merit of blasphemy laws that could potentially criminalize religious defamation.
“We are living through a period of unease,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said last week. “We are also seeing incidents of intolerance and hatred that are then exploited by others. Voices of moderation and calm need to make themselves heard at this time. We all need to speak up in favor of mutual respect and understanding of the values and beliefs of others.”
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, points out in the Washington Post that “since 1999, the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has sought to include the issue of religious defamation in UN Human Rights Council resolutions.”
And, make no mistake, Obama has already cast his lot with this international law. Here:
<a href=”http://factreal.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/obamas-blasphemy-law-to-protect-islam/”> Obama’s blasphemy law to protect Islam </a>
From the Heritage Foundation as quoted in the above link from FactReal:
“As recently as December 19, 2011, the U.S. voted for and was instrumental in passing ‘U.N. Resolution 16/18’ against ‘religious intolerance,’ ‘condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion.’ While this may sound innocuous, it was the latest incarnation of a highly controversial ‘anti-blasphemy’ resolution that has been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the United Nations since 1999.”
Make no mistake, as Coptic Christians are being murdered in Egypt along with Buddhists in Thailand, and anti-Jewish material circulates freely and in abundance in the Middle East and other Islamic strongholds, this law is NOT to protect religious minorities but to seal the mouths shut of any who would dare to criticize Islam. And, our President has supported this.
Every American should be outraged.
Glenn Greenwald is one of those lefties I agree with on occasion, although his views on Israel are way off the mark. And, no doubt, he leans socialist. However, he is very interested in civil liberties, and in this — we at least approach agreement or sometimes even flat-out agree. Here, he brings up the recent Chick Fil-A business and how it is dangerous for a government to try and ban a business, simply because it does not agree with that business’s speech. It violates constitutionally protected free speech. And, I imagine that Greenwald, like me, is all for gay marriage. He believes that if you don’t like Chick Fil-A’s views on gay marriage, or their contributions to anti-gay marriage groups, write them a letter or don’t eat there. There are other ways to let them know you disapprove, and of course, you can ignore them and work for the side promoting gay marriage and drown their voices out with better, more articulate arguments. That works better in the long run, and — it keeps the anti-gay marriage groups from feeling, in this case justifiably, persecuted.
“Should government officials be able to block businesses from opening or expanding due to disagreement with the political views of the business’ executives? Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel evidently believes he should have this power:
The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.
“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”
I know this censorship (and that’s what it is, and in the constitutional sense) — is happening in Boston as well, thanks to the Mayor of Boston.
Greenwald points out to those on the left (or supporters of gay marriage on the right) who are still obtuse on this matter, that they most likely would object if a governmental body or agency decided to ban from the city or country any corporation or small business that supported choice, or gay rights or — (on the right) supported Israel. In Europe, I hear that governments are banning Israeli businesses, and this feels ominous to me as a supporter of Israel, but more importantly, it is an overstepping of the authority of government that we should never allow in this country. Let’s not be like Europe in this case, and I do think this is unconstitutional.
We do have protected free speech and just because it is speech that I don’t like, doesn’t mean I can get the Mayor of a major American city to ban it by banning the business. Since when does a government ban businesses based on their contributions to a cause? Plus, there is nothing more galling than a bunch of anti-gay activists feeling “oppressed”. Cry me a river. But in this case, they actually have a justifiable reason for feeling that way, and that’s just no good.