Leaving aside the agenda of the protestors for a second, I'm a bit curious as to what you think amounts to appropriate protesting.

This is a boycott. No death threats, no rocks, no letter bombs. The guy has raised $125,000 to help defeat a cause they support, and they are drawing attention to it with a boycott.

So answer this: do you think boycotts are below the belt regardless of the cause? And what did you think about the boycotts of French products in 2003?

"Leaving aside the agenda of the protestors for a second"

I think that's the point! Years ago, they pleaded for "understanding" and "tolerance". Since then all they've done is DEMAND.

Sorry, but when people starting DEMANDING from me; the same ones that expouse "diversity, sensitivity, understanding, etc", I start digging in my heels.

Homophobic? Not at all, what you do in the privacy of your own home with another consenting adult is none of my business. But don't start DEMANDING I change my beliefs just because you say so.

Oh, and I'm sure they'll get around to "boycotting" in front of his home.

"I think that's the point! Years ago, they pleaded for "understanding" and "tolerance". Since then all they've done is DEMAND."

I don't think a boycott is demanding that someone changes their beliefs. I'm not even convinced that it's reasonable in this case. You say that what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their business? Damn right. And what someone believes in the privacy of their own mind is their business too.

But if someone raises a large sum of money for a cause that you're opposed to, I don't think organising a boycott is beyond the pale. And I definitely don't think it amounts to the level of oppression that Cassy was driving at.

"Oh, and I'm sure they'll get around to "boycotting" in front of his home."

Perhaps. And if they do, rest assured, I'll be just as outraged as everyone else.

"I don't think a boycott is demanding that someone changes their beliefs."

Then why, pray tell, are they boycotting? They want to impose an iconomic hardship, hoping the company owner will cave and withdraw his monetary support for a position that they oppose.

There is no attempt to persuade to another point of view, their's is an attempt to coerce.

I would be strongly in favor of the ban. However, seems to me the opponents have every right to organize like-minded individuals to contribute to their cause and boycott products/services from those who are on the opposite side of the issue. Then again, there's nothing to prevent proponents of the ban to start boycotting businesses and owners of businesses that contribute money to try to legalize gay marriage. It's all called free speech.

"Then why, pray tell, are they boycotting?"

You could argue that they are trying to make Manchester withdraw his support, but it's highly unlikely that he will. I'd suspect that, as with most boycotts, they are more interested in drawing attention to their cause, because I doubt that one fairly small boycott is going to put Hyatt Hotels out of business.

I repeat, I don't actually support this boycott. I just think it's unfair to paint it as yet another example of the PC-thought police crushing all dissenting opinions. It's a group of citizens carrying out their right to protest, and it's no different to boycotting France, or Pepsi when they were represented by Ludacris, or for that matter, to Bush cutting off foreign funding to aid groups that mention abortion.

So, those people who work in the hotel should potentially lose their jobs because their boss exercises his constitutional right to support a political cause. In a manner, by the way, that is not a discriminatory act against any of the gay rights businesses or against the people who support gay rights. Unless, of course, you think that by merely expressing anti-gay marriage thoughts you are being discriminatory.

Which is of course, what this comes down to. "We demand that you not only tolerate our position, but support is as well!" Tolerance nowadays only goes one way. And it's not... right.

So someone finds some gay doing something obnoxious and repressive so they can point the finger at the "Gay Mafia" and make themselves feel all self righteous with victim status. Way to go, you're so cool.

When ever I hear of events such as this one, the first thing I do is turn it the other way around in my mind and see if I'm still angry/outraged/upset.

In this case one should ask one's self, "If this was a group of religious people against gay marriage and they organized a boycott or protest against a hotel whose owner raised significant funds towards support of the legalization of gay marriage, would I still see it as wrong?"

You have to be honest with yourself though.

The boycott of S. Africa because of aparthied was a moral move. A boycott to financially hurt and/or drive out of business to make a point is immoral. ww

Oyster, my point exactly. For the record, no I wouldn't care if a group chose to boycott a company to protest their support of gay marriage. It's only fair.

Scott, again, they're not protesting Manchester's opposition to gay marriage, they're protesting the fact that he is actively campaigning and raising money to defeat the cause. You have to see the difference.

WW, you're contradicting yourself. Apartheid was morally repugnant, but the end result of a boycott is still to inflict financial harm in order to protest a policy or an activity that you disagree with. Ordinary South Africans would have suffered as a result of the boycott. I don't see how the boycott of Manchester's hotel is different in any way except its scale. The net result is the same. It does nothing to convince me that the outrage is not over the boycott, but over the reason.

People have the choice to use, or not to use whichever services they like. And they have the right to attempt to convince other people likewise. That's what a free market is.

"See, if you don't support gay marriage, then you don't deserve to make money."

And according to WizBang, if you don't support the president and the war, you don't deserve to make money. (Try searching this blog on "Dixie Chicks".)

I'm perfectly willing to let these nitwits have their tantrum, while the adults go about the business of coping with the real world and it's problems.

These protesters are fleas. Any sane individual walks right by them and goes in the hotel and conducts their business.

Mr. Manchester should take every opportunity to get this story out. Of course, only live TV or radio would be of any real use, as the leftist media would completely reverse everything he had to say, given the ability to edit tape. The point...I believe that a large number of people would go out of their way to stay at his hotel!!! I know damn well I would.

That's the stupidest fucking thing I've read all day, Caps Lock Baby Dog Maximus.

Stupider than going on someone else's blog and making a foul-mouthed statement that adds nothing to the discussion and insults the commenters?

Yep.

Why should I spend my money at somebody's business when they can easily take that money and contribute to something I don't agree with?

Don Wildmon is having a hissy fit and boycotting because McDonald's gave $20,000 to a gay business owners group.

Yet some guy gives $125,000 to take away people's marriages and the gays don't have a right to avoid his business?

Give me a break.

Realitycubed, in defense here, there's a difference between believing someone has a right to do a thing and criticizing it. I believe people have a right to speak their mind, but I also reserve the right to criticize it.

"See, if you don't support gay marriage, then you don't deserve to make money. You don't deserve to have a successful business. From these people's perspective, you aren't allowed to have a different opinion than the one they hold." - Who says that?

And your position is that if you are gay you don't deserve the right to get married.

Yes, Cassy, you are intolerant and closed-minded.

And why do you hate the constitution?

Let's see if I got this right.

1) Guy raises money for amendment against gay marriage. He is, in fact, the largest single donor for said amendment.

2) Gays boycott said guy.

So:

3) Guy from 1 is the persecuted victim here.

...

What color is the sky in your little fantasy land, Cassy?

I say George Soros is a swell guy. Who's with me?

Gee, it's a good thing conservatives have never, ever organized boycotts of businesses that they disagree with, or Cassy would look quite the hypocrite, no?

I think Miss Fiano needs to have a talk with the American Family Association and ask them why they keep boycotting an ever-growing list of companies because of their friendliness to TEH GHEYS. Otherwise Miss Fiano is just a Jonah Goldberg-style honking ignoramus. Well, she's that anyway, but you get the point.

Er, the sentence in the above should have read "Right-wingers don't want homosexuality to cease to EXIST." Let this be a lesson to all -- one can never proofread too many times.

See, if you don't support gay marriage, then you don't deserve to make money. You don't deserve to have a successful business. From these people's perspective, you aren't allowed to have a different opinion than the one they hold.

This is simply demented. Of course they're allowed to make money, and of course theyre allowed to hold a different opinion. They just shouldn't expect people who disagree with them to support them financially.

And yet somehow, we're the ones painted as intolerant and close-minded.

My goodness! How could that ever happen? Let's see:

* I believe that gays should be allowed to get married. I also believe that Cassy should be allowed to get married.

* Cassy, I presume, believes that she should be allowed to get married. She also, it seems, believes that gays should *not* be allowed to get married. She believes that her moral standards should apply to everyone regardless of their own views.

I do love dealing with the lower echelons of the radical right. It reminds me that there are people who are even dumber than Jonah Goldberg. That's depressing, but useful nonetheless.

Tell me that you wrote your comments as a prank. No one can honestly have such twisted reasoning as demonstrated by your words. So, I guess the Boston patriots who boycotted tea because of the British tax were really the aggressors and Old King George was the victim.

If you disagree with the gays, then they're coming after you.

Umm, it would seem to me that in the case of a boycott, they're avoiding you.

I say George Soros is a swell guy. Who's with me?

He's pretty fly. For a straight guy.

You know what really bothers me, more than a boycott?

Last year, there were reports coming out of Massachusetts about gays who were harassing those who had signed their names to a statewide petition for the definition of traditional marriage. Among them were members of a local Catholic church in one of the islands. Many were even harassed at their own homes.

I can tell you right now: if many Christians put their signatures to something that pisses gays off, they can expect harassment and intimidation on a grand scale.

Last year, there were reports coming out of Massachusetts about gays who were harassing those who had signed their names to a statewide petition for the definition of traditional marriage. Among them were members of a local Catholic church in one of the islands. Many were even harassed at their own homes.

C'mon, you can't provide a little proof that people were being harassed at by gay people in their homes for signing a petition? People besides their own gay children that is and don't be thinking copying and pasting from some email newsletter counts for anything besides your being a mark.

I can tell you right now: if many Christians put their signatures to something that pisses gays off, they can expect harassment and intimidation on a grand scale.

Wrong again, it will be so heavy a grand scale will never do. We're going to need a faaaaahhhhbulous scale.

I say George Soros is a swell guy. Who's with me?

Oooh, me, me! Didn't he survive the Holocaust? Sounds like a somebody that everyone should emulate. Er, strive to be like, I mean.

There are enough false equivalencies, specious assertions and hyperboles in those three paragraphs to paint a HUNDRED Cassies as intolerant and closed-minded.

When I read complaints of this ilk, the same question leaps to mind every time: what do conservatives want from gays in America? Hell, what does Cassy want?

For gays to simply stop being gay?

For gays to force themselves into a heterosexual lifestyle, desperately hoping that it will somehow "take?"

No. If homosexuality vanished from the public eye, folks like Cassy would no longer have the soul-satisfying pleasure of beating their moral outrage stiff over those dirty, disgusting queers. Imagine the mud-slinging delight that right-wingers would be denied if there were no more Gay Pride parades!

What conservative homophobes want is for gays to SHUT UP and simply learn to live with the cold, hard fact that they are, in this great Christian nation, second-class citizens. Third-class, even. And isn't that as it should be, being that homosexuality is an abomination before God and disgusting in the bargain, right?

Shut up and take it. That's the message of the right, for those of you sick enough to love those of your own gender.

Fired from your job for having a same-sex lover? Tough - should have thought of the outcome when you chose your odious lifestyle.

Evicted from your apartment because your landlord doesn't approve of two women living together in sin? Sucks to be you, ladies - but it is his building, and he's only exercising his religious freedom, after all.

Thrown out of a restaurant for touching your lover's hand, while all around you "normal" couples share kisses? Too damn bad - actions have consequences, and your actions make decent people want to puke.

Shut up and take it. Right-wingers don't want homosexuality to cease to exist. What fun is that? No, they want queers to be cowering and servile, yet satisfied - grateful, even! - with whatever crumbs of tolerance or pity are thrown their way. Of course, the Falwells, Dobsons, and yes, Cassys of the world much prefer to dole out kicks, rather than crumbs. Take that, faggot!

Shut up and take it. We don't want to know about your vile gayness - unless we want to make an example of you for your degeneracy, that is - so keep it to yourself. It's enough that we know who you are, and the horrible things you do behind closed doors. And rest assured, if you even attempt to fight for equality with your loathsome "gay agenda," we will move heaven and earth to crush you like the vermin you are.

"It's not that we hate you, understand - it's God that hates you. Too bad if you can't deal with that." I actually heard those words spoken to a gay student during my days at an Alabama university.

Sigh. And these are the same people who claim with a straight face that Christians are the most oppressed and persecuted of Americans. Truly, irony is dead.

The fact is, God does hate homosexuals. Its in the Bible. Christians are being persecuted, as are successful business ownders. The gays are hateful and will come after you. Gay marriage makes my straight marriage and yours wirthless, next thing people will be marrying children, animals and buildings.

I can tell you right now: if many Christians put their signatures to something that pisses gays off, they can expect harassment and intimidation on a grand scale.

While this won't ever happen, due to sheer population numbers alone, it would only be fitting, given that's precisely what Christians in this country have been doing to us for decades.