[Vision2020] Local businessman slandered

Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:55:07 -0800

--=====================_183399989==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 11:40 PM 11/8/03 -0800, you wrote:
>Wouldn't it have been more accurate for the Argonaut headline to read 
>"Local Business Vandalized"?
>
>The stickering was vandalism, pure and simple.  It's a crime.  It's 
>cowardly.  It was undoubtedly motivated by religious intolerance.  It 
>wasn't, however, racist, and it's silly to say that it was.

Do you have definitive evidence that it was not racially motivated?  On 
what basis and information do you state that this potential hate crime was 
"undoubtedly motivated by religious intolerance?"  Is there a significant 
difference between a hate crime motivated by race or religion?

>It doesn't make sense to organize a boycott in this situation, because 
>there's no policy to change.

On this, I agree with you.

>
>On the other hand, you won't see me spending a thin dime to fill the 
>pockets of someone who feels comfortable telling a Tribune reporter that 
>gay people are immoral, but he can accept us as we are.  Gay money fills 
>that cash register just like straight money, doesn't it, Mr. 
>Greenfield?  Thanks a million, but my immoral family and our immoral money 
>won't strain your "acceptance."   And neither will our friends.  And if 
>indeed there are steady customers of Bucer's who are gay, as Mr. 
>Greenfield claims, I hope they'll think twice about their next 
>visit.  Self-loathing ought to have its limits.

If the bakery in question provides equality of treatment then it seems to 
have met the standard proposed by boycott in Montgomery and in 
California.  The fact that later poster has indicated that he was unaware 
of the establishments' religious inclinations would indicate that they are 
truly accepting.  On the other hand, you seem to suggest that equality of 
treatment is not acceptable and that any business you patronize will 
positively reaffirm your philosophical worldview or be punished.  That does 
not to appear to be a truly tolerant attitude.  Also, boycotts or any 
withholding of business can only impact privately held beliefs - those 
beliefs that have become institutionalized are enforced with the power of 
government.  There are many aspects of the federal budget that most people 
might find reprehensible (or for that matter the UI budget) but they are 
far more protected than individual businesses.  Clearly an unequal 
treatment of worldviews.  In this case, a vulnerable small, minority run 
business is targeted for the purpose of thought control.

>Still waiting for the Christian bakery which provides its customers with 
>moral reflections on gluttony (one of the Seven Deadlies, no less),

You might consider the Christian virtue of compassion before you reflect on 
others' moral failing of gluttony.  (Freely admitting that I tend toward 
gluttony ;^}

Paul Duffau

ps.  I do not patronize or attend the bakery, the church, the university.  
--=====================_183399989==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
At 11:40 PM 11/8/03 -0800, you wrote: 
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>Wouldn't it have
been more accurate for the Argonaut headline to read &quot;Local Business
Vandalized&quot;? 
&nbsp; 
The stickering was vandalism, pure and
simple.&nbsp; It's a crime.&nbsp; It's cowardly.&nbsp; It was undoubtedly
motivated by religious intolerance.&nbsp; It wasn't, however, racist, and
it's silly to say that it was.&nbsp; </blockquote> 
Do you have definitive evidence that it was not racially motivated?&nbsp;
On what basis and information do you state that this potential hate crime
was &quot;undoubtedly motivated by religious intolerance?&quot;&nbsp; Is
there a significant difference between a hate crime motivated by race or
religion? 
 
 
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>It doesn't make
sense to organize a boycott in this situation, because there's no policy
to change.</blockquote> 
On this, I agree with you. 
 
 
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>&nbsp; 
On the other hand, you won't see me spending a
thin dime to fill the pockets of someone who feels comfortable telling a
Tribune reporter that gay people are immoral, but he can accept us as we
are.&nbsp; Gay money fills that cash register just like straight money,
doesn't it, Mr. Greenfield?&nbsp; Thanks a million, but my immoral family
and our immoral money won't strain your
&quot;acceptance.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And neither will our friends.&nbsp;
And if indeed there are steady customers of Bucer's who are gay, as Mr.
Greenfield claims, I hope they'll think twice about their next
visit.&nbsp; Self-loathing ought to have its
limits.</blockquote> 
 
If the bakery in question provides equality of treatment then it seems to
have met the standard proposed by boycott in Montgomery and in
California.&nbsp; The fact that later poster has indicated that he was
unaware of the establishments' religious inclinations would indicate that
they are truly accepting.&nbsp; On the other hand, you seem to suggest
that equality of treatment is not acceptable and that any business you
patronize will positively reaffirm your philosophical worldview or be
punished.&nbsp; That does not to appear to be a truly tolerant
attitude.&nbsp; Also, boycotts or any withholding of business can only
impact privately held beliefs - those beliefs that have become
institutionalized are enforced with the power of government.&nbsp; There
are many aspects of the federal budget that most people might find
reprehensible (or for that matter the UI budget) but they are far more
protected than individual businesses.&nbsp; Clearly an unequal treatment
of worldviews.&nbsp; In this case, a vulnerable small, minority run
business is targeted for the purpose of thought
control.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
<blockquote type=3Dcite cite>Still waiting for
the Christian bakery which provides its customers with moral reflections
on gluttony (one of the Seven Deadlies, no
less),</blockquote> 
You might consider the Christian virtue of compassion before you reflect
on others' moral failing of gluttony.&nbsp; (Freely admitting that I tend
toward gluttony ;^} 
 
Paul Duffau 
 
ps.&nbsp; I do not patronize or attend the bakery, the church, the
university.&nbsp; </html>

--=====================_183399989==_.ALT--