A blog spotlights businesses that backed Proposition 8

The effort to focus public attention on businesses whose owners or workers supported Proposition 8 shows few signs of slowing down -- though it remains unclear what effect the grass-roots, Web-based effort is actually having. The Press-Telegram's John Canalis and Phillip Zonkel profile the co-publisher of one of the websites, You Can't Hide the Hate, that is trying to spotlight these businesses. It appears the site is sensitive to the criticism that some of the tactics are similar to blacklisting:

Once a viewer clicks "Long Beach" under the "Communities With Fliers" title, the site lists about 350 donors in Long Beach, Lakewood, Bellflower, Signal Hill, among other areas, who contributed money in support of Proposition 8. The site is a community forum, identifying donors and helping viewers make informed decisions about conducting business, promoting tolerance and civil rights, [co-publisher Raphael] Mazor said. The site states, "We do NOT advocate blacklisting or boycotts, only informed decision making and awareness. We are 100 percent opposed to violence, vandalism and threats and do not endorse using any information in a nefarious way."

The site includes details about business owners and employees who donated to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (including at least one Google map). One big target in Long Beach has been the owner of numerous El Pollo Loco franchises. This can be a problem if you like that chicken. As one commenter on the website said: "This one is the saddest for me as WKS Restaurant group owns most of the El Pollo Loco franchises (over 50) in So Cal and several Denny's and Corner Bakery Cafe's in CA, AZ, and Utah. El Pollo Loco is one of my favorite restaurants. I am working on the locations so I know which ones I can't go to anymore ..."

--Shelby Grad

Comments

[Where are my rights?]

The #1 lie in the whole campaign is that marriage is a right. Perhaps it will shock you to find this out, but if you have to get a license for it, then it is not a right.
Government has long asserted the authority to regulate marriage and procreation. Hence laws against marrying siblings, cousins, multiple spouses, someone with a blood-born disease, an animal, and so forth. These laws existed long before 1789 (the US Constitution) and if marriage was an explicit RIGHT, would have thus been named in the Bill of Rights as a major break from current governance.
Government regulation has subsequently been legislated and upheld by the Supreme Court. Notable are the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act, the Poland Act, Reynolds v. United States, the Edmunds Act, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act. All of these regulated marriage with the penalty of explicitly TAKING AWAY enumerated constitutional rights for those who did not conform. Recent history is interesting. 30 states have put up similar propositions. All 30 have passed. Bottom line, Prop 8 will stand. Take it to the US Supreme Court and the result will likely be 50/50 states rather than 30/50.

[Joseph Styles]

If there is one fact that is indisputable in this entire controversy it is that the State of California recognizes a right to marry. Simply go to the State Supreme Court's website, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/index.htm and read the opinion In re Marriage Cases, paying particular attention to pages 5 through 9.

You may not like it; you may disagree with it; but in the State of California there is, in law, a right to marry.

[Jon Katz]

We have blindly tolerated the corruptive and hateful force for far too long. It is about time that we stand up and destroy it before it destroys us. I think the problem was that most of us couldn't believe it was real. Honestly, who would have believed that there are grownup men and women out there that genuinely believe that they have an imaginary friend in the sky that watches them and guides them and builds them into ignorant hypocritical bigots.

[Miguel]

Jon Katz hit the nail on the head. This is actually about the gays' desire to achieve complete destruction of religion. It has nothing to do with marriage for them. They want to eradicate any belief system that disagrees with their immoral lifestyle. Not unlike Nazis if you ask me.

[miguel]

Thanks Joseph for the link to that ridiculous piece of garbage authored by the California Supreme Court, which employs the worst kind of sophistry in a pretended effort to interpret the constitution. The entire argument hinges on this non-sequitur:

"The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

The indisputal truth is that this "basic civil right" - to get married -- is already guaranteed to all citizens. But gays don't like the basic civil right that is already guaranteed to all citizens. They want a special, different (unnatural, immoral, counter-productive) "basic civil right."

[Hazumu Osaragi]

Hi;

May I interject a real life situation. I’d like to hear your guidance on this.

My mother was given a drug to take to lessen the chance of miscarriage and promote healthy babies — that’s what the doctor told her. The drug is Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. In male fetuses, it feminizes the brains of one in five of us ‘DES sons’.

I finally came to terms with this, and realized my choice was transition or die. So, I’m now a male-to-female transsexual who’s had ‘the operation.’ I’ve changed all my legal paperwork and although I still have a male body with XY chromosomes, it has been retrofitted to approximate female anatomy, which is good because if I ever end up in an accident, there will be no ’surprise’ for the first responders.

I ‘pass’ very well, thank you. Only rarely do strangers figure out I was not born this way. Most people have to be told, by me, or, more often, by someone else who just has to ‘drop the bomb.’

All my paperwork has been changed. Legally, I'm female. But I have to find an OB/GYN who can check my prostate during my yearly pelvic exam (yearly mammograms don't need that level of disclosure.)

So my question to you is — knowing what you know now about me, and assuming for the moment you get absolute power to label me and make determinations on where I can and can't go —

-Do I marry a man? Or do I marry a woman?

-Which restroom and changing facility do you feel I, a male-to-female transsexual, should use when in public spaces?

-Am I immoral?

-Am I a paedophile?

-Am I tearing down western society in support of a deviant agenda?

-Am I selfish?

I eagerly await your responses;

Hazumu Osaragi

[Rick DeLano]

It is becoming increasingly apparent that fellows like Jon Katz haven't quite thought things all the way through.

Jon, you want to consider carefully, before you breathe out your threats to "destroy", that if it ever came right down to it, there are over 500,000 more folks in California alone who are quite prepared to defend themselves, their families, and, oh yes indeed, their faith, than there are people prepared to help you "destroy" what you call a "hateful force".

Consider also, friend, that the numbers would be much worse for your little pogrom elsewhere.

Back to your video games, then.

[Brady]

define: bigot - A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

When are people going to stop using this term? Does the gay community not understand the definition? If I do not believe in gay marriage and that is my belief, wouldn't that make anyone who had a differing opinion a bigot? The term goes both ways people. I am quite tired of countless homosexuals who think that the word bigot was invented to describe people who supported Proposition 8.

Hate, that's another great word. The only anger and hate I have witnessed is from homosexuals who now insist on systematically "informing the public" of people and businesses who supported Proposition 8. Message boards are filled with responses like our friend Mr. Katz who are spewing hate and intolerance towards people with a different believe than his own.

So far, I have seen ignorance of basic word definition, bigotry, and hate spewing from the homosexuals who are up in arms over something that won by a majority vote. I love how liberals favor a democratic system until it doesn't go their way. I think it is time to grow up.

[INSGo]

Miguel, you are right, we plan to eliminate religion since people like you believe in the moronic things it promotes.

[informed1*]

What many are unaware of is that the Yes on 8 campaigners were threatening to expose and black list those contributing to the No on 8 campaign long before November 4th. Long prior to No on 8 proponents protesting contributors to the Yes on 8 campaign, Yes on 8 campaigners were already for several months blacklisting No on 8 contributors.

Further in the past, prominent companies were boycotted by those upset that they extended benefits to gay employees' partners. Amongst those effected were Pepsi, Disney, Ford, McDonalds, to name a few. But, nah, gays have no grounds to claim Prop 8 is just another attempt to strip them of their rights.

Essentially, Yes on 8 campaigners and their predecessors set the stage and No on 8 proponents simply adopted their same tactics, post-Prop-8's passing. It doesn't necessarily make it right, but it evened the playing field, I would guess. In any event, how can you stand in judgement of one side without equal criticism for the other?

Oh, yeah. Forgot. This isn't about truth or fairness.