El Coyote Cafe Mormon “Matriarch” Resigns
Posted By: 'Okie' | 8:02 pm — 12/8/2008 | 
7 Comments See comments below:
Back on Nov. 14th, a mere ten days after Proposition 8 was passed by a majority of California voters, I wrote about Marjorie Christoffersen, co-owner of El Coyote Mexican Cafe, who was harassed and bullied by gay and lesbian patrons for donating a measly $100 to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. Well, the harassment, and subsequent boycott of the cafe by LGBT customers worked. Christoffersen has resigned from the place she has worked for the past 17 years.
Michelle Malkin says that “Gay groups are doing a happy dance.”
Just more tolerance, peace and love from the Left. The “bent” Left in this regard.
Technorati Tags: Proposition 8, Marjorie Christoffersen, El Coyote Mexican Cafe
This entry was posted on Monday, December 8th, 2008 at 8:02 pm and is filed under Lefty Nutters, Protect Marriage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. |
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Recently Posted:
- Too Late To Apologize — Hard Rockin’ Founding Fathers Edition!
- Global Warming Is Dead, Dead, DEAD — Walter Russell Mead Says So!
- Even Some Die Hard Liberals Get It — Obama Presidency Is A Bust!
- Scott Brown Wins In Massachusetts — Hell Freezes Over, Pigs Be a Flyin’ — Dems On Suicide Watch!
- Dems In Massachusetts — They Can’t Win If They Don’t Cheat!
- More Global Warming Horse Hockey From The Scientific Consensus
- Scott Brown Ahead in Massachusetts Polling!
- America Rising
- Happy New Year?
- More On The Obama/Interpol Sovereignty SANFU
09 December 2008 | lazarus Said:
As Michelle Malkin would say… “Actions have consequences.”
Marjie Christofferson offended her customers, so her customers took their $$$ to another establishment. Simple as that.
09 December 2008 | Jerald Said:
It is extremely alarming that one side of a democratic vote can single out individual contributors to a cause and bully them.
This mob didn’t quietly take their dollars elsewhere, they harrassed the entire business and this women and forced her out of her job. Not to mention that she was targeted for the bullying because of her religion.
It is horrifying how this type of mobocracy is being at best ignored and at worsted justified by the main stream media.
I wonder if the response would be the same if the Yes on 8 supporters started using the same tactics against No on 8 donators. Something tells me there would be more outrage from the press.
09 December 2008 | lazarus Said:
Shorter Jerald: “Whaaaaaaaaaaah!”
Her family runs a business in a gay enclave. The food at this business is notoriously abysmal. It would’ve gone under decades ago if not for the gay patrons who appreciated the campy atmosphere. The gay community was collectively a good friend to this business. But Marjie stabbed them in the back.
She’s not being punished for her religious beliefs. She’s being boycotted for her public support of anti-gay propaganda and anti-gay legislation.
Again, as Michelle would say, actions have consequences. Were you this broken up over the Dixie Chicks boycott and violent protests?
09 December 2008 | Saltypundit Said:
There’s a difference between the Dixie Chicks, who are famous musicians who openly espoused their views through their music; and a private individual who did not openly air her views, and only contributed a modest sum to a political campaign.
“She’s not being punished for her religious beliefs.”
Yes she is. Otherwise, why the violent protests against the Mormon church? And the bullying and name calling against Christians who supported Prop 8?
And if actions have consequences, would gays like it if non-gays were to surround their businesses and force them to donate equally to prop 8? Or would they like it if non-gays were to sue gay matchmaking services to force them to accommodate heterosexuals? It seems that gays want rights for themselves but are intolerant of the rights of those who disagree with them.
09 December 2008 | lazarus Said:
Since political contributions are a matter of public record, her donation is not a private matter. It’s a public statement. Churches are being protested because of their leaders have decided to run them like PACs. If ministers want to politicize their churches they’re going to have to learn how to live with political backlash and stop whining about it.
Nobody forced anybody to do anything. And you have it backwards. The Yes on 8 crowd are the ones who are taking rights away. The words “ELIMINATES RIGHT OF” are in the official title of Prop 8. So get off that high horse.
And you’re missing the point of the boycotts. They aren’t about winning hearts and minds. They’re about letting people know there will be consequences for supporting attacks on the gay community. Just as their are consequences for supporting attacks against women, Jews, blacks, and other groups.
09 December 2008 | Jerald Said:
Lazarus–Funny you bring up the Dixie Chicks. Strange comparison. Anyway…
So now you say all political donations are “public support.” Which means we should all go and get the public record of donators to causes and politicians we don’t support and make their lives miserable through bullying, stalking, and violence until they back down and stop opposing our cause or candidate.
So you are telling me the pro-life people should start posting the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and places of employment of everybody supporting the pro-choice agenda and go after them using the same tactics you are supporting using against the Yes on 8 supporters. That is what you are saying, right?
And don’t try to wash over the argument with the “rights” garbage. It’s not about the right to be able to live together, or get other financial or guardianship rights as a “civil union”, it’s about the desire of some in the gay community to get the government to force society to prohibit treating homosexuality like a sin. In other words, to prohibit any talk or actions that would “discriminate” against homosexuals by saying their sexual activity is wrong. The next step is to condon adoptions by gay couples, impose penalties for not accepting practicing homosexuals in some church positions, schools, etc., force teaching that gay sex is normal (not a sin but a normal part of life) in schools, and other similar actions to force society to treat gay sex as a welcome and normal “orientation.”
Tell me you are willing to have your gay-marriage rights include stipulations that will prevent law suits against religious organizations that have policies against adoption by gay couples, or unmarried couples, etc., against churches that do not condon gay marriage or gay sex, or against parents or teachers that prefer to leave teaching about sexual orientation out of the curriculum. You know, those things are already happening in Massachusetts.
You want “separation of Church and State” meaning you want the State to prevent the Church from having a say on morale issues. You want to remove the “religious or God discussion or beliefs” from government policy. Okay, so tell me, since the State no longer allows religious input about right and wrong, why the laws against statutory rape? What’s wrong with a 16-year old wanting to play around with a handsome older guy? She’s a reproductively mature adult right? What about people that want to marry more than one woman or man? Why all the fuse and hostility from the State? They are all concenting adults right? What about US people buying child porn from countries where it is legal? Hey, the State says it okay, so who are we to oppose it?
This gay marriage thing is not about treaty gay people decently, protecting them from real civil rights discrimination and hate crimes, and giving them many of the economic and guardianship privileges of married couples so they can take care of their partner. It is about using the State to force society and religions to abolish the concept of gay sex as a sin.
Tell me I’m wrong.
09 December 2008 | Jerald Said:
By the way Lazarus, are you also suggesting that businesses with owners or employees that donated to No on 8 that are in mostly hetersexual neighborhoods should be boycotted and harrassed and made to fire the people who donated because they betrayed the “straight” people?
Is that where you really want to take the discussion?