On Thursday, April 23, an openly gay hotel owner remarked on his Facebook page that he had accepted the opportunity to speak with GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz about LGBT issues.
Only a few hours passed before militant gays began to attack the man for daring to even speak to Cruz. Now, a day later, a gay organization has actually canceled a charity event at the hotel over the conversation.On his Facebook page, Hotelier Ian Reisner noted that he had a “candid conversation” about LGBT issues with Senator Cruz. While Reisner averred that he “strongly” disagrees with Cruz on those issues, he went on to sensibly and civilly say, “having an open dialogue with those who have differing political opinions is a part of what this country was founded on.”
Despite Reisner’s paean to the American way, his gay clientele firmly disagreed with his desire for dialog and their hate and invective began to fill the comments section of the Facebook post. They were incensed over the fact that the hotelier dared have a mere conversation with Cruz.
Further proving that many in the gay community refuse to even have a simple conversation with conservatives and Republicans, a gay group has now canceled a charity event because Reisner met with Senator Cruz.
On Friday, Tom Viola, Executive Director of the group Broadway Cares, a gay non-profit group that raises money to fight AIDS, announced that his organization was canceling a charity event that was scheduled to be held in Reisner’s hotel.
After hiding behind the claim that his group is proud of its “rich diversity,” Viola went on to claim in his statement that Reisner’s actions “negatively impacts us as an organization and potentially jeopardizes our relationship with others.”
“This is not about partisan politics or punishment,” Viola claimed, despite the fact that he is canceling his event merely because Reisner talked to a Republican.
In the end, for this gay group, at least, it appears that merely having a conversation with a perceived enemy can put an end to charity.
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com.
As I see it, the group has the right to choose what ever hotel they want, even if their reason for switching is goofy at best, empty showboating for no effect.
ReplyDeleteOh, I don’t see it as showboating for no effect… these small groups are hell bent on forcing conformity… a conformity that people who actually risk their time and effort to start a businesses are powerless to have a say in.
DeleteThey are going to keep doing stuff like this and legal challenges in favour of the right of free association such as what occurred in Indiana are going to become a trend. Then they will start having to act like people who deserve respect instead of snotty little thugs protected by daddy government.
A few days ago,TS asked that I write a piece about what I wanted America to be. I am not qualified but that has never prevented me offering an opinion in the past.
DeleteI may perhaps inject into these small pieces I write a few ideas and observations which are everyday occurrences in America but unknown and therefore newsworthy here.
Firstly the legal system which appears to encourage petty and expensive litigation. The results are often unimportant but the principals are considered to be so and the plethora of smart suited lawyers do all they can to encourage the practice. In the case being discussed here the lawyers will no doubt be sharpening their pencils.
My observation on this story is to note the pertinent comments of TS, The owner cannot refuse the custom of the group, but the group can cancel on the booking (thereby depriving the owner of his livelihood) my summation.
Now go to the book “A Monk Swimming” by Malachy McCourt an immigrant and mad Irishman who relates how he responded when he did not conform to the dress rules in a bar. The owner ejected our hero when he refused to “check in” his overcoat. McCourt then went to his car and stripped bare and replaced his overcoat. On re-entering the joint he finally divested himself of the offending coat and was promptly ejected again.
So here we have conflicting rules and outcomes when rules take precedence over common sense. Commentators manage to infer political connotations to supposed evil occurrences. TS makes a very good point in stating a business cannot refuse custom but a customer is not to be held responsible for canceling what appears to be a contract.
What then is likely to occur if a strait guy holds a meeting with a gay Republican politician? Will all the other straight guys send the man to Coventry? And make political capital from the event?
Cheers from Aussie
"these small groups are hell bent on forcing conformity… a conformity that people who actually risk their time and effort to start a businesses are powerless to have a say in. "
DeleteSomeday, conservatives are going to overplay their hand with this tired saw. Objectively, I have to admit that for years, particularly in the later 80's, I also felt that the gay community had an unrealistic agenda. Note, I say gay community and not the Democrats because it was still years before Democrats realized there were votes to be had there. Anyway, what I felt then was a demand for complete acceptance of whatever it meant to be gay rather than a demand to simply have equal rights of straight people. I think that has changed though it is clear that for some on the left, this will always be something to wave a flag about.
It's never a salient point, IMO, when someone finds one little instance to make an entire broad description. I see plenty of militant like gay people who do have a political agenda I don't agree with. These people do not remotely represent the whole any more than Ted Aiken represents the entirety of conservatism.
Slowly, society has moved towards simply not caring about whether someone is gay and has made a logical move to conclude it is ridiculous to discriminate against someone solely because they are gay. Conservatives have chosen to make this one of the hills they will die on, and they are. Abortion is no longer a national campaign issue because it is decided law. Much as I think it will pain them, the Supremes are likely about to do the same for gay marriage. These little spats, like the one mentioned here, are going to go away as well. Much ado about nothing.
Conservatives have chosen to make this one of the hills they will die on, and they are.
DeleteReally a generalization covering all?
Is that like saying all liberals claim racism to get their way.
Okay, I have never owned a business but my brother has owned several, all very successful. I can assure you that he is not gay and has voted Republican all his voting life. I also know that the only customers he would discriminate against are those who don't pay their bills. I know that this is only one example, but it leads me to believe that discrimination against customers because of their "life style" is bad business. And I think that discrimination against a business owner because of his social associations is insane, but that's just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteMick,
ReplyDeleteI don’t disagree with you Mick but I also believe that people operate within a set of principles that guide them in what they do and don’t do. Odds are that few businesses will turn away business without a very compelling reason but the key here that they, like anyone else, should have the right. Without the damaging provisions of the Civil rights Act that ended the right of people to freely associate I can guarantee you that one of a couple of things would have happened. At a minimum in most cases, business would have reviewed the impact this group could potentially have on their business. After seeing the stunt, they would immediately instruct their booking people to 1) only offer services to them based on a very odorous contract or 2) tell them to decline the custom of that particular customer. You see, even if their political and social views aligned with these economic terrorists, they know that they for some other superfluous reason they too could receive the same treatment. This ability allows society and not law to regulate social order and stop yahoos like the radical elements of the gay movement from forcing their minority position on the majority with the assistance of a government gun.
King,
ReplyDeleteOf course King the point goes farther than just the proprietor’s inability to turn away custom if they choose although its logic is the root to many social ills.
Background: In 1964 the US passed a piece of legislation called the Civil Rights Act. One of its provisions grossly changed governments association with the citizen and changed citizen’s relationship with each other. In 1890 the Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana state law forced business (in this case rail coach service) to separate its services between black and white customers. While the provisions of STATE MANDATED segregation were rightly found to be unconstitutional this 1964 law instituted the antithesis…. STATE MANDATED integration…. Just as unconstitutional and in its own way just as damaging to society.
Ostensibly the reason… or at least the advertised reason was that business would no longer serve people of color. Of course this was a problem that needed no fixing as… but as the all wise and knowing members of the north saw it EVERY white person in the south was prejudice neglecting the fact that business as it often does with stupid laws, it adapted. Up to that point no business was forced to serve black customers… Lester Madox opened a restaurant specifically to serve only his white friends… business owners themselves understanding the value of the black customer circumvented the laws at their own expense by essentially created two business, one for whites and one for blacks.
The forced integration provisions effected not only publicly owned businesses… i.e. city owned bus services but all private business as well. Two naturally occurring and evolving things happened. One the state forced people who did not get along into the same room (this did absolutely nothing to foster love and understanding), by opening all business to blacks (who were quite eager to force prejudice whites to serve them) they were less inclined to start businesses of their own. Of course the mission creep of the righteous left eventually consumed private clubs and even the ability of men to change their cloths in private.
The long term social effects of this law are varied and numerous. This altered the right of free people to associate with other free people as they chose. This meant that people could no longer choose who their clientele were but had to adapt business plans to include people who the business was never designed to serve. This also ended the right of a society to set its own social norms and values…. They are now a dictate of law and as such, society can no longer regulate the bad or damaging habits of individuals and groups.
Not allowing owners of property and business to exercise their right of ownership, gives groups like the one in this article the unmitigated power to not only hold this proprietor hostage but threaten every other business at the same time by proxy with not one but two threats… in this case… ‘tow our political line or we will cause you economic harm and if you turn your backs on us… we will sue you because we are gay… or feminists.. or whatever the hot social issue of the day is.’
Max likes to delude himself that ‘society has come to accept’ … and that provisions such as Roe are ‘Settled Law’ but the fact is, society may have become compliant in the face of government force and 50 years of social indoctrination in school but the racial harmony, sexual responsibility and moral values of the country are still very much up for debate… and as 100 years of separate but equal have shown… reversible. I would suggest that people who believe in laws created in the way that forced integration was instated should be very careful about their love of spurious law created without foundation…
King,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a society where litigation is so rampant… I lay that at the feet of a mountain of laws created to protects, regulates and forbids that which needs no more government interference than the basic laws of violence, fraud and coercion. Here again is were having a fundamental law is so important… deviating from that base law with precedence and judicial deference leads to the types of distortions that lawyers and lobbyists prosper from and government and politicians uses to empower themselves .
That bent towards ever more intrusive laws providing fodder for ever increasing numbers of lawyers made its way across the pond to the UK… as the TV jingle goes… “Where there’s a blame… There’s a claim” Perhaps curtailing the areas and amplitude of government would end some of the frivolous litigation… hell getting government out of business might end much of the corruption on Wall Street… hell, getting government out of most everything would make the world a happier and safer place to live.
P.S. thanks for the straight up comments... they are appriciated.
Oh yes... about that Irish dude... it is clear he just barged into the place without reading the rules...expecting the world to accept him and his conduct as he chose... obviously the propritior had the right to eject him at least on the grounds of what cloths he wore.. a consderibly larger infraction perhaps that ones moral view or indeed public social conduct which, at least in the US is taboo to challenge.
Max… are you kidding… feminists (who generally loath anything republican particularly a republican woman) were pushing gay men out of the closet in the 60’s and 70’s. They knew the political gains that could be made by propping up the gay movement as a good many of them were lesbian to begin with…
ReplyDeleteIf you find this ‘incident’ as isolated, you aren’t paying attention. The LGBT movement has been threatening their way in just about every area of society. Hell, I worked with a guy back in the mid 80’s. He was one of the first openly gay men I ever knew. He was friendly and personable but in fairness not the most dedicated worker… but he always maintained that if he was ever fired, he would immediately file a case with NLRB and claim the dismissal was because he was gay.
Society is slowly changing?.... of course it is Max… when you control the education of 40 years of children you are bound to alter thinking. When you force people to stop the discussion by creating hate laws you are going to conclude that the subject is … ‘settled law’….that doesn’t make the thoughts correct nor does it sanctify the methods….