Patterico's Pontifications

5/12/2015

Boycotted Gay Hotelier Who Hosted Ted Cruz Chat Speaks Out

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:21 am



Gay hotelier Mati Weiderpass is speaking out against those narrow-minded members of the LGBT community who have been boycotting his hotel since hosting a non-fundraising meeting with presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz:

It is amazing that my businesses are being boycotted by some because I hosted a discussion with an elected official. Not a fundraiser. Not an endorsement. A dialogue. What would we say if the Jewish community organized a boycott of a business leader who hosted a private discussion with an important Muslim politician? We know the answer. I am a longtime leader of my community – and proud of who I am and what I have accomplished.

Boycotting me for a discussion? Since when have we grown so small and intolerant?

Weiderpass also addresses the need for the LBGT community to work with those across the aisle in order to advance their causes.

Further, he necessarily points out what has been painfully obvious to us on this side of the aisle, and yet has been conveniently ignored by those on the other side:

I have many Jewish friends, and Israel, as the cradle of most religions, is near and dear to my heart. Today, there are American politicians who are embracing Iran at the expense of Israel, which has been America’s strongest ally in the Middle East, the most democratic country in the region, and very accepting of the LGBT community.

Iran, on the other hand, adorns their bridges and public squares with hanging ropes targeting the necks of anyone suspected of being gay. At the moment, homosexuality is illegal in all of the Arab countries, but I hope we can work to change that over time.

Should the treatment of gays in the Arab world not be discussed with candidates who oppose same-sex marriage? Do my boycotters think that is not important, or do they simply ignore it? Iran maintains control of its people by denying basic human rights, and many autocrats throughout the Middle East similarly oppress their citizens.

And, as if speaking to small children who haven’t yet grasped the basics, Weiderpass points out that free speech for everyone must be protected, at all costs:

In the U.S., if the rights to free speech, expression, and association are whittled away, the gay community along with most other minority communities will be vulnerable to losing all that has been gained. Shunning dialogue with political opponents is not the road to advancement.

One hopes Weiderpass’s words penetrate the narrow-minded bigots who have demonstrated an inability to tolerate the right of free speech being exercised by a member of their community.

–Dana

71 Responses to “Boycotted Gay Hotelier Who Hosted Ted Cruz Chat Speaks Out”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Thanks Dana. Great piece.

    Georganne (e37667)

  3. is there really a boycott?

    the only documentation i seen of a boycott is a screenshot of a page thrown up by slacktivist facebook trash

    possibly some tweets are involved

    i’m skeptical that anything approaching a for reals effective boycott is in place

    and I think it’s a given that the anti-gay socially backwards losers Ted Cruz panders to are also very unlikely to be supporting these enterprises

    happyfeet (831175)

  4. The bigots are attacking something more basic…they do not want anyone to think thoughts unapproved by them. Rather like ISIS.

    (Also technical objection. Are they not attacking here the right of free association… the right to talk to whom you want?)

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  5. Ultimately, kishnvei, and yet in this, they overlap, no?

    Dana (86e864)

  6. Are they not attacking here the right of free association

    this make no sense in my head Mr. kishnevi

    even if there’s a boycott in place

    and i did find a protest out front of the hotel a couple weeks ago and some people who cancelled their reservations

    but a boycott is just a way of encouraging people to exercise their own rights of free association

    you can just as easily say that hyper-religious anti-gay marriage goons are “boycotting” politicians who don’t share their militant anti-gay views by not voting for them

    at the end of the day what we have here is a devoutly Hillary-loving sleazy manhattan trash hotel guy what is having some business troubles

    who and also cares

    happyfeet (831175)

  7. Well, the bigots seem to be not attacking what Weiderpass said to Cruz. Instead,they seem to think it was a crime for him to even be in the same room as Cruz.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  8. Mr Feets they are saying Wiederpass has no right to associate with people they do not like.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  9. He should have said this instead of that pathetic apology where he claimed not to “know” where Ted Cruz stood on the issues. Would’ve showed some backbone.

    He would’ve known that the left only likes to destroy. They look for excuses to do so. That’s why our resident nonsensical troll makes excuses for them.

    NJRob (d36337)

  10. Mr. kishnevi they’re not saying he doesn’t have the right to associate with Mr. Cruz

    they’re saying they’d rather spend their money at places owned by people who don’t offer respect and legitimacy to an anti-gay demagogue like Ted Cruz

    and they have every right to feel that way

    Mr. Cruz is a vocal advocate for the view that gay people do not deserve equal treatment under the law

    a peaceful lil boycott is the exact sort of remonstration what is wholly within bounds of civil discourse

    Here’s a recent encapsulation of the discussion the boycotters are promoting:

    On one hand, this business owner caters to the gay community. To the extent that his actions or words offend his clientele, he is alienating his clientele. As for the clientele, they certainly have the right to spend their money where they like, and it’s hard to blame them for not wanting to spend their money at a business that they believe is fighting an issue that is important to them.

    On the other hand, the actions to punish Reisner seem to spring from an illiberal impulse: the desire to punish opposite viewpoints rather than debate them, or persuade someone that they are wrong.

    Again what’s the big deal I don’t get it.

    happyfeet (831175)

  11. I wish Weiderpass had said exactly this, loud and publicly, instead of the whiney groveling apologies which first his partner and then he issued at the time of the dinner and fireside chat that blew up the leftist internet. His words and insights about this are important now, and I believe these are and were his true feelings and motives. But they were even more important to express boldly then, in the heat of the moment.

    elissa (bca30e)

  12. They are mad and boycotting because someone broke rank and thought and behaved as an individual and as a mature, thinking adult.

    Dana (10275a)

  13. This Gay Hotelier does not know if he is a top or a bottom.

    One day he supports, next day he cries ignorance, now he talks tolerance of Conservatives ….. get your head out of his ass please.

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  14. OTOH, ‘git ‘er done’ Mitch McConnell is still a steaming pile of bat guano.

    DNF (208255)

  15. Absolutely true, Dana. Nothing worse that trivializing the situation, is there?

    The measure of what you believe, of course, is how you defend the rights of those with whom you do not agree.

    Of course, that is predicated on being serious and not a low information snarky type.

    Simon Jester (ea8297)

  16. I’m wondering about the 180 degree turn as well. Something else must have happened.

    seeRpea (81fcfe)

  17. FRankly, I think we should boycott Cruz. Who is Cruz to associate with a fag like Weiderpass? I would rather associate myself politically with people who don’t offer respect and legitimacy to a pro-queer demagogue like Weiderpass and I have every right to feel this way!

    Ms. Weiderpass is a vocal advocate for the view that gay people deserve special treatment under the law as well as universal celibration of their psycho-sexual problems. Radicals like Weiderpass lie when they make statements like; “Mr. Cruz is a vocal advocate for the view that gay people do not deserve equal treatment under the law”. Never has Cruz stated that gays should be denied their Constitutional rights, he has merely stated that they do NOT have the right to redefine words or the meaning of words to suit their own narrow, perverted agenda.

    Hope that cers it up happyfeet.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  18. The measure of what you believe, of course, is how you defend the rights of those with whom you do not agree.

    and it’s a lone pikachu what is defending the rights of these people to boycott the hotel guys

    i also defend the right of the hotel guys to cozy up to Mr. Cruz

    i also defend everyone’s right to enjoy tasty chik fila sammiches

    I also defend the right people have to choose not to eat Crystal Kaddiddlehopper’s hate pizza

    I also defend the right of gay people to get married

    I also support the right of even the most socially backwards self-identified christians to get married

    I support the right of Fox to cancel American Idol

    I support the right of Jewel-Osco to not carry bible bread to where a pikachu is forced to go to ho fooz

    happyfeet (831175)

  19. Me? I want to take the hit up front.

    I knew what the steeplechase race organizers were about.

    Steve57 (e468ba)

  20. *chik fil a* sammiches i mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  21. “Again what’s the big deal I don’t get it.”

    Simple, that the KKK would not be able to get a license to protest black owned hotels or bars or anything.

    Simple, that if given the right to protest black owned bars the media would come out and make them the devil incarnate.

    So… actually I very big deal since some folks seem to be more “FREE” than others in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the media elite.

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  22. The left supports lively debate and free association surrounding the support of one homogeneous opinion and Mr. Feets is all in favor of that “big tent” approach.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  23. Baxter, who is the stupid, backward, wrong thinking opposition to be named and shamed, boycotted, and crushed today?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. Well, I look forward to more people arguing that Cruz is an awful person, given Patterico’s feelings about him.

    Nothing better, or classier, than spitting into the host’s punchbowl.

    Simon Jester (ea8297)

  25. i love Ted Cruz more than beans i just disagree with his militant anti-gay views on marriage and i disdain his educational pedigree and I think his resume is a lil on the thin side

    but I’m glad he’s in teh race

    unlike Mike Huckabee who makes me feel queasy in my tummy to where i have to stay home from school sometimes

    happyfeet (831175)

  26. Mr Jester !

    And just who exactly are you saying our happyfeets is the spitting image of, then ?

    imdw ?

    A N Other Sockpuppet, Esq ?

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  27. Alastor, it’s frustrating. But you know, it’s not my blog. I do think all the low wattage thinking and jaw-dropping hypocrisy might impact other people wanting to contribute, but hey…again, it’s not my blog.

    I just continue to think of this as a party, put on by Patterico. Everyone is invited. But some guests are nice, and some are not so nice. Folks get to choose how often or how much they attend based on the types of guests, and what those guests feel they can get away with in someone else’s home.

    But that’s me. Everyone else has different ideas, and that’s cool.

    Simon Jester (ea8297)

  28. that’s a really lovely metaphor

    happyfeet (831175)

  29. I wish Weiderpass had said exactly this, loud and publicly, instead of the whiney groveling apologies which first his partner and then he issued at the time of the dinner and fireside chat that blew up the leftist internet. His words and insights about this are important now, and I believe these are and were his true feelings and motives. But they were even more important to express boldly then, in the heat of the moment.

    He runs a business that caters to gays. In the aftermath he was focused on trying to save that business, so he did the obsequious thing that comes naturally to hoteliers. Didn’t work, so he decided he might as well be hanged for what he believes.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  30. So, feets, how would you beef up his resume?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  31. If the comments section in that article is any indication then Mr. Weiderpass should quickly realize just how foolish an exercise it is reasoning with these petulant children.

    Sean (69ccc8)

  32. i would make it more presidential Mr. M

    he should get some executive experience like presidents of yore for example Ronald Wilson Reagan

    a lot of people don’t know that before he was president Mr. Reagan was actually a two-term governor of california

    that’s the sort of thing that really pops out on a resume I think

    happyfeet (831175)

  33. Not going to have an impact. He’s already been unpersoned.

    JWB (6cba10)

  34. Personally, I welcome our tolerant liberal superiors demonstrating their intolerance by punishing people for for crime speech, thought and action. At least some of the trains and planes in fascist America run on time.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  35. Simple, that the KKK would not be able to get a license to protest black owned hotels or bars or anything.

    Actually, they would (to whatever extent they needed a permit in the first place). What makes you think otherwise?

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  36. Maybe Mati Weiderpass and Brendan Eich should meet for coffee or a beer someday. They seem to have run up against the same blowtorch.

    elissa (bca30e)

  37. a lot of people don’t know that before he was president Mr. Reagan was actually a two-term governor of california

    Do tell. He was also an actor. As the great Dr Emmett Brown pointed out, “No wonder your president has to be an actor. He’s gotta look good on television.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. Happy,

    He was Solicitor General of Texas. That is an executive job. But yes, he wasn’t a governor and tended to have had advocacy roles. Which he was good at.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  39. Mr. kishnevi they’re not saying he doesn’t have the right to associate with Mr. Cruz

    Yes, that is exactly what they are saying.

    they’re saying they’d rather spend their money at places owned by people who don’t offer respect and legitimacy to an anti-gay demagogue like Ted Cruz. and they have every right to feel that way

    No, they are not just declining to do business with him themselves, they are organizing a boycott expressly designed to destroy his livelihood, and for the express purpose of putting fear into the heart of anyone else who would dare do the same. That is not legitimate exercise of the freedom of association, happyfeet, it is an attempt to rule by terror. It is Stalinism.

    Let’s do some imaginings, feets. Let’s imagine your new boss at your new job in Chicago comes to you one day and says “I’m really sorry to tell you this, feets, but it’s come to the wrong people’s attention that you’re a Republican, so I’m going to have to let you go. Not that I’ve got anything against Republicans. In factwhen I get into the privacy of the voting booth, and I’ve checked for hidden cameras, <sotto-voce>I vote Republican myself</sotto-voce>. But you have to understand that I do business with Democrats, and if it becomes known that I hired a Republican they’ll take their business elsewhere. Not even because all of them are such fanatic Democrats themselves, but because they know that if they are seen doing business with someone who has employed a Republican they will be boycotted too. And nobody can afford that. So pack your bags, change your name, and at your next job don’t ever tell anyone how you think or you’ll end up living in a packing crate. <fortissimo>And don’t come around here any more, you hear?</fortissimo>”

    Imagine you got told that, feets, would you still say your boss was exercising his freedom of association — or that the organizers of the boycott he was so afraid of were merely exercising theirs?

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  40. And there’s this.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  41. i love Ted Cruz more than beans i just disagree with his militant anti-gay views on marriage and i disdain his educational pedigree and I think his resume is a lil on the thin side

    And yet you think he’s so outside the pale that it’s OK to drive someone out of business merely for having treated him as one would treat any normal political candidate.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  42. You know who organised boycotts of businesses they didn’t like? The Nazis, that’s who, pikachu. And they were mean. You don’t want to be like them, do you?

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  43. no Mr. Milhouse organizing a boycott is not the same as attempting to rule by terror

    it’s a valid form of free speech

    not going to some gay hotel and saying other people shouldn’t go either is the same as canceling your subscription to the la times and saying other people should cancel too

    it’s a rough and tumble whirl out there

    buckle up

    happyfeet (831175)

  44. I’m wondering about the 180 degree turn as well. Something else must have happened.

    It’s very simple. His livelihood was at stake, so he tried grovelling and begging for mercy. But he saw that it wasn’t going to help, that the mob are out for blood and no matter what he does they won’t stop until he’s bankrupt, so he may as well speak the truth.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  45. not going to some gay hotel and saying other people shouldn’t go either is the same as canceling your subscription to the la times and saying other people should cancel too

    And you know what? If someone were to do that just because the Trainer interviewed a mainstream Democrat candidate (i.e. not Al Sharpton) and treated him like an acceptable human being, then that would be wrong.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  46. well one would imagine the wrongitude of it would impact the effectiveness of the boycott, no?

    happyfeet (831175)

  47. Also read this about fear, and how it spreads.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  48. well one would imagine the wrongitude of it would impact the effectiveness of the boycott, no?

    No, it wouldn’t, because the boycotters are either sheep, or as you would see at the link I just posted, afraid themselves of being the next neck in the noose.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  49. look i’m not arguing that failmerica isn’t a burgeoningly fascist sleazy whorestate

    i’m just saying that boycotts are valid exercisings of people’s rights and as such they’re totally in bounds

    it’s not a new or startling thing that when you run a business you have to be careful when dabbling in politics

    one of the most basic principles of marketing is that you don’t want to alienate your customers and that you want to focus your branding on your value propositions not on Ted Cruz

    happyfeet (831175)

  50. I wish Weiderpass had said exactly this, loud and publicly, instead of the whiney groveling apologies which first his partner and then he issued at the time of the dinner and fireside chat that blew up the leftist internet. His words and insights about this are important now, and I believe these are and were his true feelings and motives. But they were even more important to express boldly then, in the heat of the moment.

    Great point, elissa. I understand Kevin M’s conjecture that his initial apology to the gay community was just an attempt to stave off the boycott, but at the very least it seems that Weiderpass lacks much intestinal fortitude and the courage of his convictions. God bless him, but I doubt if he would be too effective an ally for tolerance.

    JVW (8278a3)

  51. Actually, the wrongitude can make the boycott more effective.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._5_(Shostakovich)

    An article reportedly written by the composer appeared in the Moscow newspaper Vechernyaya Moskva a few days before the premiere of the Fifth Symphony. There, he reportedly states that the work “is a Soviet artist’s creative response to justified criticism.” Whether Shostakovich or someone more closely connected with the Party actually wrote the article is open to question,[18] but the phrase “justified criticism”—a reference to the denunciation of the composer in 1936—is especially telling.[19] Official critics treated the work as a turnaround in its composer’s career, a personal perestroyka or “restructuring” by the composer, with the Party engineering Shostakovich’s rehabilitation as carefully as it had his fall a couple of years earlier.[18] Like the Pravda attack at that time on the opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, the political basis for extolling the Fifth Symphony was to show how the Party could make artists bow to its demands.[18] It had to show that it could reward as easily and fully as it could punish.[18]

    And Shostakovich himself is supposed to have put it this way:
    It’s as if someone were beating you with a stick and saying, “Your business is rejoicing, your business is rejoicing,” and you rise, shaky, and go marching off, muttering, “Our business is rejoicing, our business is rejoicing

    kishnevi (870883)

  52. So, if in fact, it was a gay couple who wanted to use the facilities and if the owner of the business had turned them down, much as the gaygestapo are telling him now, the owner would now be in court defending his actions. Since in reality it was a non-gay politician, it is perfectly ok to boycott him. Hypocracy alert! But that pretty much is what happens with progressives when only their rights are what count, and anyone else, just “Shutup, he said.”

    TimothyJ (bc1d8d)

  53. So, if in fact, it was a gay couple who wanted to use the facilities and if the owner of the business had turned them down, much as the gaygestapo are telling him now, the owner would now be in court defending his actions. Since in reality it was a non-gay politician, it is perfectly ok to boycott him.

    Um, no. Stop dragging stupid red herrings into this.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  54. i’m just saying that boycotts are valid exercisings of people’s rights and as such they’re totally in bounds

    Just like the Nazis.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  55. it’s not a new or startling thing that when you run a business you have to be careful when dabbling in politics

    It’s actually a very new and startling thing, and very unAmerican.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  56. The Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany began on 1 April 1933, in retaliation of the Jewish boycott of German goods which had started soon after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. It was largely unsuccessful, as the German populace continued to use Jewish businesses, but revealed the intent of the Nazis to undermine the viability of Jews in Germany.*

    happyfeet (831175)

  57. Elissa – though similar to the Mozilla fiasco, this one – to me – is even more egregious as he is being railroaded for having the temerity to speak to someone that has a differing opinion.

    JD (ef7925)

  58. no it is not a new thing my goodness

    why do you think klanpickles wore hoods

    happyfeet (831175)

  59. why do you think klanpickles wore hoods

    Because what they were doing was considered unacceptable in America.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  60. The point here is that Ted Cruz is not David Duke, and it’s not acceptable to pretend he is.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  61. Al Sharpton is David Duke, and should be treated that way.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  62. Boycotting me for a discussion? Since when have we grown so small and intolerant?

    Is this a trick question?

    J.P. (cc46f4)

  63. Everybody has the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex, even gays. Even happy foot.
    The trick is finding someone who will put up with your horse guano.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  64. Shows you boycotts work! Unless your selling white sheets and wood to make cross burnings!

    mrboycott (ebfbfc)

  65. Seek help, Perry. The doctors have your best interest in mind. Those voices that you are listening to are not real.

    JD (3b5483)

  66. In the U.S., if the rights to free speech, expression, and association are whittled away, the gay community along with most other minority communities will be vulnerable to losing all that has been gained. Shunning dialogue with political opponents is not the road to advancement.

    For me, the above is the silver lining I will cherish when we are conquered by our Muslim overlords.

    Jack (a742cc)

  67. He was Solicitor General of Texas. That is an executive job. But yes, he wasn’t a governor and tended to have had advocacy roles. Which he was good at.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/12/2015 @ 9:38 am

    I probably have this wrong, but it occurs to me that as such he argued cases before the USSC several times, successfully. No small feat and certainly something Hilary! or Lieawatha couldn’t do with any grace or aplomb, much less intelligence or knowledge.

    Bill H (08df09)

  68. I was aware of that Shostakovich anecdote, through Vollmann’s Europa Central, it has been a bloody and vicious century, and we seem intent in revisiting it,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  69. If you support suing some old lady Christian baker to the tune of $135,000 for the crime of not baking your wedding cake, excuse me for not caring if Muslim countries throw you off a bridge for being gay.

    Death to the Jihad (2b0c22)

  70. “The only social order in which freedom of speech is secure is the one in
    which it is secure for everyone… and, as those who call for censorship
    in the name of the oppressed ought to recognize, it is never the oppressed
    who determine the bounds of the censorship. Their power is limited to
    legitimizing the idea of censorship.”

    – Aryeh Neier –

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1277 secs.