A Stitch in Haste

I realize that the El Coyote incident was a few gay insults ago and not exactly new news, but fellow gay blogger Tom Chatt of UpWord weighed in recently:

I can sympathize with those who are angry at El Coyote, and can understand why this particular donation incurred such wrath. A friend recently noted that there’s a strong sense of betrayal, because for so many gay people, El Coyote has seemed to be a safe and welcoming place for us, a part of “our neighborhood”. And El Coyote has certainly done a significant share of its business from its gay clientele.
…
On the other hand, [Margie] Christofferson seems oblivious to the injustice she has helped to perpetrate.

To which my response in a comment was:

Sorry, but at this point there must also be zero tolerance for obliviousness. If you want to be a politically illiterate dolt, then do so in the management of your own life and your own affairs. Leave me out of it.

I have no sympathy for her whatsoever.

In the eminently forgettable movie The Patriot, Mel Gibson says something like, “I have a family. I can’t afford the luxury of principles.” Can gays, especially those who have families (including California marriage licenses), now afford the luxury of not having principles?

Recall that we are dealing with people who, either actively like Rick Warren or passively like Margie Christofferson, are not only seeking to erect barriers to full equality but are now also working to repeal rights already granted. To give, even mindlessly, $100 to support the crusade of people who compare gay marriage to incest and pedophilia is worth at least $100 of public shaming. To vote, mindlessly, as instructed by people who are consumed by hate and drenched in bigotry, is to vote for hate and bigotry. Your mindlessness is not a defense. “Oops” is simply not enough. We can’t afford the luxury of you not having principles.

These are the people, not us, who insist that this is war — a culture war — and who are acting accordingly. What excuse, other than obliviousness, do people like Christofferson have for underwriting persecution? How have we judged such people — who were “just following instructions” — in the past?

Recall also that we have a president-elect who has already thrown gays under the bus not once, not twice, but three times, and who hasn’t even been — ahem — inaugurated yet. The “luxury of principles”?

Do I think that any number of blogposts, op-eds and Facebook groups will convince Obama to un-invite Warren? Of course not. (For the record, I also expect Warren’s invocation to be the typical bland, lowest-common-denominator drivel that such quasi-sermons usually contain.)

But none of that is the point. The point is that no non-victim of any harm has standing to tell a victim of harm how to feel about being a victim or how (within the confines of legality) to react to such victimization.

El Coyote or Rick Warren may not seem like a big deal to you. So what? When someone insists that you are the moral equivalent of a pedophile, that you are summarily incompetent to raise children, or that your marriage license should be put to a popular vote by people like Rick Warren and Margie Christofferson, then let’s talk. Until then: “It’s a victim thing; you wouldn’t understand.”

—

Later in his post, Tom goes off on an interesting tangent:

Philosophically, I have a bit of discomfort with the fairness of a boycott, given the asymmetry in our laws. In “libertopia”, everyone would have unfettered choice about who they do business with. But here in America (and especially in California), we recognize the power of a majority to economically tyrannize a minority, and so we have created laws against discrimination in public accommodations. Businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate (at least based on a variety of protected classes like race, religion, etc.) in choosing their customers. But customers, on the other hand, are allowed to choose their businesses. For instance, while it would be illegal for a restaurant to refuse to serve black people, it is not illegal for black people to organize a boycott of a restaurant. There’s just something asymmetrical and unfair about that.

Of course, in “libertopia” anti-discrimination laws would only apply to state actors, so the power imbalance Tom describes would not exist. But the propriety of the Civil Rights Act and state-level counterparts is a subject for another blogpost. (And don’t forget the added question of whether, in “libertopia,” Christofferson’s $100 contribution would have been a matter of public record in the first place.)

Let’s just keep in mind here that Christofferson was targeted not for any policy of El Coyote, but for her own personal bigotry obliviousness. The “power balance” between a business establishment and its customers really doesn’t play into the question.