This is a weird story from NPR, since they seem to be trying to play-up the whole Christian victimization thing that’s popular on conservative media.
It’s no secret who gave money for and against the controversial amendment to the state’s constitution, known as Proposition 8. California’s secretary of state publicized the lists of contributors, which were picked up by local media and Web sites.
…
In Sacramento, the owners of Leatherby’s Family Creamery found themselves part of the backlash when The Sacramento Bee printed the list of contributors. Dave Leatherby, a devout Roman Catholic father of 10, says he was responding to a direct request from his bishop to give generously.
“We gave $20,000 for Yes on Proposition 8,” he says.
And once that was known, retaliation was swift. “We soon started getting very nasty e-mails and letters and phone calls by the hundreds,” he says.
Leatherby says he was mystified, because the Creamery had always enjoyed good relations with the gay and lesbian community.
Wow. Leatherby was mystified by the backlash? Donating $20,000 is going to identify you as an extremist. The fact that he previously had good relations with the gay and lesbian communities probably made his donation seem like an even bigger betrayal. It astounds me that the guy can act surprised that the gay community reacted. I also liked how he tried to defer responsibility by saying, “he was responding to a direct request from his bishop to give generously” – as if he had no responsibility in that decision; he was just taking marching orders.
I couldn’t help but imagine this scenario reinterpreted in a 1950s context:
In Macon Georgia, the owners of Leatherby’s Family Creamery found themselves part of the backlash when local paper printed the list of contributors. Dave Leatherby, a devout Roman Catholic father of 10, says he was responding to a direct request from his bishop to give generously.
“We gave $20,000 for Yes on Segregation,” he says.
And once that was known, retaliation was swift. “We soon started getting very nasty e-mails and letters and phone calls by the hundreds,” he says.
Leatherby says he was mystified, because the Creamery had always enjoyed good relations with the African-American community.
“This seems to be an effort to indiscriminately go after anyone who contributed money, regardless of their position on gay issues,” says Frank Schubert, spokesman for the Yes on 8 campaign.
Wha? “indiscriminately go after anyone who contributed money”? Isn’t that a contradiction? The fact that someone gave money to support Proposition 8 tells you a lot about their “position on gay issues”.
He says the backlash has endangered individuals who exercised their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Assuming, of course, that “has endangered individuals” means “boycotts businesses” (not violence), and “exercising their constitutional right to freedom of religion” actually means “imposing beliefs on other people”. But, hey, maybe their religion requires them to impose their beliefs on everyone else, and so, any attempt to stop religious people from imposing their beliefs on me is actually “restricting their exercise of their religion”. My religion requires me to slash car tires. Anyone attempting to stop me is guilty of restricting my constitutional freedoms.
Another 1950s reinterpretation:
“This seems to be an effort to indiscriminately go after anyone who contributed money to support segregation, regardless of their position on minority issues,” says Frank Schubert, spokesman for the Yes on Segregation campaign. He says the backlash has endangered individuals who exercised their constitutional right to freedom of religion – a religion that required them to view Black people as inferior.
I always like how “boycotting” is interpreted as evil bullying when done by gay activists or liberals, but it’s a perfectly decent thing to do when done by conservatives. For example, Boycotts of Disney, Pepsi:
[In 1996] the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), disturbed at Disney’s equal treatment of heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals, threatened a boycott. Later that year, the Assemblies of God started an independent boycott. It was motivated by a wide range of concerns: a book, a movie, and theme park policies. In 1997, the SBC initiated its boycott. This was joined by a number of other agencies and denominations: one Muslim, two Jewish, one mainline Christian denomination and dozens of conservative Christian faith groups. By 2001-MAR, these boycotts remained in place, but are not particularly visible in the media. (Source)
Yeah, you read that right: they were disturbed by equal treatment. Good God, what next? Equal treatment of Black people, too? Whites and Blacks drinking from the same water fountain? Women getting equal pay for equal work?
And Pepsi:
“The American Family Association” is now targeting Pepsi for what the AFA calls not “remaining neutral in the culture war.” The American Family Association routinely announces boycotts of corporations that have made gay-friendly advertising, employment, or charity decisions. (Source)
Original Story: NPR – Backers Of Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Face Backlash
Read Full Post »
Tiny Frog 