Hotel-owning NYC gay business partners Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner face an LGBT boycott for meeting with Ted Cruz, primarily to discuss American relations with Israel.
Reisner and Weiderpass said that they disagreed with Cruz on gay marriage and that his appearance at a get-together they hosted “was a step in the right direction toward him having a better understanding” of what they believed.
But the inquisitors smell blood, and they will not be put off.
David Weigel writes, “The irony is that the gay backlash to Cruz’s hosts might engender sympathy with gay marriage opponents,” which has certainly been true of other recent LGBT boycotts (which, unlike the action against Weiderpass and Reisner, at least targeted actual gay marriage opponents, albeit small vendors who rightfully come across as the victims of a bullying mob).
More. And not the mob alone, but authoritarians with state power. Destroying their businesses wasn’t enough, apparently.
I think many have felt cowed into not criticizing progressive LGBT affronts to tolerance and liberty for fear of sowing disunity in the fight for marriage (libertarians, for the most part, are the ones speaking out for both the right to marriage and the right to religious dissent).
I fear that if anything might deter Justice Kennedy from joining with the liberals to find a constitutional right to wed, it’s the unveiling of the authoritarianism driving LGBT progressives as they strive to enforce their vision of ideological and behavioral conformity.
If the court rules the right way in June, I hope more will feel emboldened to speak out in favor of tolerance and mutual respect, even if it means standing up to the mob and its political allies.
Furthermore. Cruz has also taken heat from the religious right over the meeting, showing that zealots on both left and right see any kind of dialog with “the enemy” as anathema.
Final word Reisner offers self-criticism and pledges to toe the correct party line. Note: despite some sloppy misreporting (and malicious misblogging), this meeting was not a fundraiser for Cruz. Should gay people not be allowed to meet conservatives and talk about issues that might unite or divide them? Well, I think we’ve learned the answer.
It’s not only about marriage, of course. You’d better uphold the whole progressive agenda, OR ELSE. From the Daily Beast:
“It’s not a coincidence that Cruz is anti-gay and also anti-social-safety net, anti-reproductive justice, and anti-affirmative action. What extremely fortunate white gay men like Reisner and Weiderpass don’t understand is that it’s all one big package: the classism, the religious conservatism, the social conservatism—these all go together.”
And after the freedom to marriage is secured (hopefully soon), expect that the ongoing morphing of the LGBT rights movement into a full-blown brigade of the progressive left to accelerate.
Real final word. James Kirchick writes, Ted Cruz’s Gay Hosts Shouldn’t Apologize:
So what if two rich gay hoteliers invited Ted Cruz to chat with them at their home? That’s the kind of bridge building we need more of, not less.
And this:
If Obama can meet with the likes of Raul Castro, who heads a regime that threw gay men into concentration camps where they were worked to death, why can’t a couple of gay businessmen have dinner with a politician who opposes same-sex marriage?
Indeed.
Final update, for real Apology revoked.
Added: Subsequently, Reisner revealed:
“In the interest of transparency, I gave Senator Cruz a $2,700 cheque to show my support for his work on behalf of Israel,” Reisner said in a statement [to the New York Times]. “When I realized his donation could be misconstrued as supporting his anti-gay marriage agenda, I asked for the money back. Senator Cruz’s office gave the money back, and I have no intention of giving any money to any politicians who aren’t in support of LGBT issues.”
30 Comments for “Transgressors, Beware”
posted by Lori Heine on
Human beings–wow! They are funny, funny, funny creatures. I think our nearest intergalactic neighbors are having great fun watching the show. As long as we keep making them laugh, perhaps they won’t destroy us.
Ted Cruz is finding out–already–that he can’t appease these people no matter what he does. That even he is getting burned by pandering to them is just too rich.
Jumbo popcorn. Then to the little counter with the garlic salt and all the napkins.
posted by Houndentenor on
Cruz is my senator. He’s sleazy even by the low standards of the legal profession. Anyone willing to get in the gutter with him has to know that slime will not wash off. I feel no sympathy towards this pair. But a question for Stephen…how is this different from the fit right-wingers had over Christie hugging Obama? Oh right…when Republicans do things it’s okay. It’s just when Democrats do something that it’s wrong.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I favor applying the Sherbert test (substantial burden, compelling state interest, least restrictive means) to all laws, federal, state and local. I’ve said so many times on IGF and elsewhere.
The Sherbert test was the law of the land from 1963, when the Warren Court issued Sherbert, until 1988, when the Rehnquist Court backed off from that standard in Employment Division v. Smith.
Oddly, I never hear so-called “libertarians” aligned with the Republican Party and its social conservative base talking about restoring the Sherbert test to all laws. All I hear them talking about is same-sex marriage and the martyred bakers, florists and photographers crushed under the oppressive hand of the state at the behest of the gay and lesbian mob.
If and when the so-called “libertarians” get serious about protecting religious freedom, let me know.
posted by Lori Heine on
Good for you. Keep advocating for the Sherbert Test. I hope it doesn’t disappoint you too much to learn that I agree with you on that.
For the record–in case I was too subtle in what I’ve already said on the issue–I do not consider anti-gay baker, florists or photographers “martyrs.” I consider them damned fools. But the fact that they are (in many cases, still convincingly) portraying themselves as martyrs is still not politically constructive for us.
Apples and oranges. Whether they’re morally and logically right or wrong is one, and whether we’re smarter to play into their hands or not is the other.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I have no idea what to make of the Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner saga. The “intimate dinner” with Senator Cruz and his wife, and a small number of other, presumably wealthy guests, was not, by all accounts a “fundraiser”.
However, I’ve been around politics a long time, and I can’t help but believe that there was an understanding that the dinner was a way of laying the ground for a significant ask.
If Weiderpass and Reisner didn’t know that, they must be the most politically naive rich guys on the planet. And if Senator Cruz was went for dinner and warm conversation alone, he’s different from any politician I’ve ever met.
One thing that puzzles me is why Senator Cruz accepted the invitation. As a general rule, it is very hard to get face time with presidential candidates, and face time is carefully vetted. Neither Weiderpass nor Reisner are significant political donors (together, the two have contributed only about $25,000 to federal candidates, most of them gay or lesbian, in the last decade). Nobody would mistake the couple for Peter Theil (who has a record of contributions to Cruz) or other wealthy conservative gays, who routinely make sizable contributions to ant-equality Republican candidates. Nothing — nothing at all — in the couple’s donation history suggests that Senator Cruz was likely to get much, if anything, from the couple. So why was he wasting his time with them?
Another thing that puzzles me is that Weiderpass bragged about the “intimate dinner” on his Facebook page, among other things posting a picture. You’d think that a reasonably savvy businessman catering to the New York gay and lesbian crowd would know that he’d get a reaction, and not in a good way. What was he thinking?
The whole thing is a mystery to me, and makes me glad that I live out in the sticks, where folks have a modicum of common sense.
posted by Houndentenor on
And then the next day Cruz introduced not one but two anti-gay bills in Congress. So much for meeting with Republicans having any affect on them. No, I wouldn’t stay in their hotels either. Of course it’s only wrong when liberals boycott something. Conservatives call for boycotts far more often these days but they just fail at following through.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Conservatives call for boycotts far more often these days but they just fail at following through.
That’s because they don’t go to our secret mob-training schools.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Update: Ian Reisner issued this statement on Facebook Sunday:
I have a bit of advice to Reisner: The next time you are thinking about hosting a reception for a politician, find out what the candidate stands for before you issue the invitation, and if you don’t have the time to do it yourself, have one of your staffers do it. Rich is rich, stupid rich is, well, stupid.
posted by Mike in Houston on
To quote Joe My God:
And to conflate violation of a legal statute that has withstood challenge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court with free-market approbation is not only disingenuous but a continuing reminder of the paucity of Stephen’s ‘arguments’.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If Stephen were interested in religious freedom, he would be arguing on behalf of extending the Sherbert test to all laws, reversing the work of the Rehnquist Court to limit religious freedom, not about sanctioning special discrimination against gays and lesbians (and gays and lesbians alone), by conservative Christian business owners. If Stephen were interested in protecting small, family-owned conservative Christian businesses (that is, the bakers, florists and photographers) from public accommodations laws, he would be arguing on behalf of a de minimus exemption protecting small, family-owned businesses. Notice that he does neither, and he does not discuss the actual nature of the proposed laws. All he does is denounce gays and lesbians.
The fact that Stephen is getting more and more shrill, like his conservative Christian counterparts, in his denunciations of gays and lesbians as marriage equality nationwide becomes closer and Americans are increasingly coming to see through the “religious freedom” charade, is evidence, not only of the paucity of his arguments, but of his increasing desperation. A year ago, Stephen was telling us that marriage equality would not be an issue in the 2016 elections, and it is clear now that he was dead wrong about that prediction. Conservative Christians are not going to let this issue go away, and the Republican Party has no way to deal with it.
So what’s the solution? Trash gays and lesbians, yet again, as the Republican Party has done for more than a decade.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m tired of it. Nonetheless, I plan on continuing to argue on behalf of religious freedom, and hold the proposed “religious freedom” laws up to scrutiny on core principles of “equal means equal” — religion-neutral, issue-neutral and class-neutral. The laws that meet the test, I’ll support. The laws that don’t, I won’t, and I’ll explain exactly why.
posted by Houndentenor on
Because corporations exist to make a profit, the only way to effectively change their behavior is to make what they are doing unprofitable. Of course they don’t like boycotts, especially the ones that work. It interferes withf their usual practice of steamrolling over the rights and interests of anyone who gets in their way.
posted by Jorge on
And not the mob alone, but authoritarians with state power. Destroying their businesses wasn’t enough, apparently.
$60,000+ each for emotional suffering!? That’s nothing less than subsidizing narcissism!
primarily to discuss American relations with Israel.
I can almost see why some people are dissatisfied with that. As it stands, Ted Cruz is a joke candidate. Giving him a minor in foreign policy suddenly increases his chances of winning exponentially. I really don’t want that.
posted by clayton on
“$60,000+ each for emotional suffering!? That’s nothing less than subsidizing narcissism!”
Like you, I find the amount excessive, but it’s worth noting that the court officers determined the amount, not the plaintiffs, and, therefore, saying the award is “subsidizing narcissism” is putting the blame on the wrong party.
posted by Jorge on
(…………)
Granted.
However, they went along with suing for emotional suffering.
(……………….)
Oh, never mind. Fair. It’s a rude enough surprise that some people would go to therapy for it. They should have lost the case fair and square, but they didn’t.
posted by JohnInCA on
I might consider being sympathetic about the amount if I had any confidence that they, personally, would ever pay a dime of it.
posted by Mike Alexander on
“I fear that if anything might deter Justice Kennedy from joining with the liberals to find a constitutional right to wed, it’s the unveiling of the authoritarianism driving LGBT progressives as they strive to enforce their vision of ideological and behavioral conformity. ”
I find that to be an odd thought, that Kennedy would be influenced by the almost insignificant goings-on and tussles of gays vs Christians, which have little to no actual Constitutional significance concerning the topic same sex marriage. That almost sounds like a Gay Patriot rant.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen’s observation is particularly odd when Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Romer is taken into consideration.
Romer involved an amendment to the Colorado constitution that would have prevented state and local governments from including gays and lesbians from being designated as a protected class under employment and public accommodations laws. The Court ruled 6-3 that the amendment was unconstitutional. Rejecting the state’s argument that the Amendment merely blocked gay people from receiving “special rights”, Justice Kennedy wrote: “To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.” In his opinion, Justice Kennedy argued that protection offered by anti-discrimination laws was not a “special right” because the laws protected rights enjoyed by all other citizens, and that “enumerated” groups as “protected classes” served merely to put those who would discriminate on notice that special discrimination against an “ennumerated” group ran contrary to general application of the principle that all citizens should be treated equally under the law.
Now, consider that opinion in light of the proposed so-called “religious freedom” laws, the sole purpose of which (if legislative history is to be taken seriously) is to permit conservative Christians to target same-sex marriages for special, state-sanctioned, discrimination. How long do you think that such laws would survive under Justice Kennedy’s analysis?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If the court rules the right way in June, I hope more will feel emboldened to speak out in favor of tolerance and mutual respect, even if it means standing up to the mob and its political allies.
I don’t think that you have to worry about that, Stephen. The Republican primaries, in states where conservative Christians turn out disproportionately and dominate the primary process, conservative Christians will keep the issue on the Republican front burner, without fail.
But hear this clearly: Conservative Christians are not interested in “tolerance and mutual respect”. Most of them (including Justice Scalia, and probably Justices Thomas and Alito), would, given the chance, reinstate sodomy laws, ban same-sex marriage in state and federal constitutions, and eliminate legal protections for gays and lesbians in employment, housing and public accommodations.
All you have to do to know that is to listen to them. You don’t even have to listen hard. Just listen.
posted by Houndentenor on
Earlier this month a pharmacist at a WalMart refused to fill a prescription because of a religious exception. The women had just had a miscarriage and was prescribed a med that is also part of a combination of drugs that can be used to terminate a pregnancy. But that’s now why she was prescribed this medicine, not that it was any of the pharmacist’s business why this woman was being given this particular drug. So just after miscarrying she has to deal with this self-righteous asshole. This is going to become more common as everyone think that they have a moral right to refuse to do anything they don’t want to. It’s not going to just be about baking a gay marriage. These new laws are not only allowing but encouraging this bullshit. So congratulations to those who’ve been cheering this lunacy on for years now. This is what you wanted. A woman who just miscarried having to explain to a stranger why she needs a particular medicine to get her through one of the worst times of her life.
http://now.snopes.com/2015/04/13/walmart-pharmacist-miscarriage-refusal/
posted by Jorge on
This is what you wanted. A woman who just miscarried having to explain to a stranger why she needs a particular medicine to get her through one of the worst times of her life.
1) And that’s different from her previous doctor or hospital visit how? I would not take it for granted that a pregnant woman has a regular doctor or Ob/Gyn, or that she can wait to see her regular doctor before seeking medical advice. Nor would I assume that her pharmacist is a stranger.
2) I know this isn’t really your point, but I think that is the pharmacist’s business why they’re giving drugs to someone. Many pharmacies keep records of all their customers’ medication in their computer systems, alerting them to dangerous combinations.
I don’t really understand why it makes a difference to anyone what other people think these days.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I barely knew who these two men were before the media controversy erupted, and (frankly) I am not sure I care too much about them — one way or the other.
I would say that much of the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ press that I read about the ‘transgressors’ fund raiser did not discuss that this was a ‘meeting’ about the State of Israel.
Virtually all of the press that I read — and I make a habit of reading lots of different media source — said (or strongly implied) that this fund raising was in relationship to the fact that the two men were gay and hoping to — somehow — start some sort of conversation with Cruz about marriage equality.
Now its “wait, wait we were just meeting to discuss Cruz’s views on Israel or help support his views”.
Frankly, serious candidates in the United States rarely differ — too much — on their Israeli policy, albeit for different reasons. It would be very unlikely that Cruz or indeed any major GOP primary candidate wouldn’t pledge to defend Israel (given how it fits into the ‘end of times’ Christian philosophy).
The “fund raiser” and much of the media coverage about it all seems a bit “iffy”. It is unlikely that Cruz is appealing to these hotel magnets because of his views on Israeli (largely because it aint likely to be too different) or gay marriage (because Cruz needs to milk the GOP base).
posted by JohnInCA on
Huh. Didn’t know that in the Sweet Cakes case a tasting appointment was made and the bakery didn’t let the couple know they wouldn’t do business with ’em till they showed up for the appointment. That kinda kills any vague sympathy I had.
That said, I think it’s amazingly dishonest how anyone tries to talk about these non-discrimination cases like marriage matters. The big one they use to trumpet, Elane Photography? Happened in a state without same-sex marriage. So did several others if I recall correctly.
I’m also not sure why there’s any fear these irrelevant cases will sway the Justices. They had the opportunity to take up this battle and turned it down. They denied cert for the Elane Photography case without comment. If they were that concerned with the extension of non-discrimination law to gay people I think they would have done so over that case rather then the more straightforward bakery and florist cases.
posted by clayton on
Isn’t Stephen’s view of the bakery-and-florist controversy that if the service providers object to the ceremony, the gay couple should just go somewhere else?
And isn’t that what a boycott of the gay hoteliers amounts to? People just taking their business somewhere else?
Why is it okay for businesses to refuse service to customers, but not for customers to take their business elsewhere? Aren’t both exercises in the free-market economy that Stephen presumably espouses?
Consistency, please.
posted by Lori Heine on
“And isn’t that what a boycott of the gay hoteliers amounts to? People just taking their business somewhere else?”
Because on this blog, sauce for the Republican goose is not sauce for the LGBT-supporting public gander.
Maybe we’ll eventually get a post answering your question about consistency. If so, it’ll probably be headed “Consistency is the Hobgoblin” or something similarly witty.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
“Why is it okay for businesses to refuse service to customers, but not for customers to take their business elsewhere? Aren’t both exercises in the free-market economy that Stephen presumably espouses?”
Oh, you big silly-billy. A customer should never ever do anything to hurt or cause any sort of problems a Republican business owner. Since the hotel owners are Republican — and apparently have a thing for Cruz — it would be wrong, horribly wrong for anyone to do anything but blindly hand over them money to these two fine gentlemen. ;0)
posted by J.W. on
Do you lefty commenters really not know the difference between not wanting to service a wedding and driving a business out-of-business? Apparently not.
posted by Clayton on
I seriously doubt these hoteliers will be driven out of business, but if they can’t attract and hold onto a clientele, that’s a function of a free market economy. Nobody is claiming they did anything illegal; the only claim is that their political views are offensive to a large segment of a clientele whose business they actively solicit. If that is the case, there is no law compelling consumers to spend their money in these particular hotels. If we were to suddenly discover, for example, that the people who own Hobby Lobby are holocaust deniers, and if that caused them to lose customers, the owners of Hobby Lobby are not being held to any legal standard; instead the consumers are merely choosing different vendors.
So when Stephen argues that the proper response to a baker or caterer who does not want to do business with gays is just to take their business elsewhere, but then criticizes gays when they do, in fact, choose to take their business elsewhere, it seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction in the logic.
posted by Lori Heine on
From a free-market standpoint, a boycott is certainly well within the bounds of fair play. I quite agree that the Rules of Hoyle are being abided by there.
But my opinion on this is, again, a matter of apples and not oranges.
I wouldn’t boycott the hotel kings’ pleasure domes. (At any rate, not if I could afford them in the first place.) Why? Because all the hell they did was have a private dinner in which they hosted Senator Cruz, discussed Israel, and happened to mention gay marriage.
I’m very frankly getting tired of being told, by the Cool Girls, who I must boycott, who I must shame and why I must be outraged. Gay, Inc. is stuck in the seventh grade.
Even back in junior high, I told the Cool Girls to go piss up a rope. I’ve been out of school for a long time now. The pettiness of American special interest gripe-group politics is really getting old.
posted by Mike Alexander on
PS. We’re not agreeing with you Stephen. But I’m not seeing you attack us for that.
I thank you for that, and completely take back any reference to Gay Patriot. You are not them. You’re better… Wrong 🙂 But much better.
posted by Mike in Houston on
So, the ‘real final word’ is that because Obama met with Raul Castro – and apparently received absolutely no criticism – gays can’t criticize homocons who meet with Rafael Cruz, Jr.
IOKIYAR indeed. The lack of self-awareness is strong in this one.