Well, this whole Martha Boggs kicks Stacey Campfield out of her restaurant thing has been… enlightening, if nothing else.
Apparently, for some people, some discrimination is a-ok so long as they disagree with the person being discriminated against but it should be strictly, legally verboten in any situations they feel appropriate (in other words, logical/internal consistency fail), while those those same people (and others) have no problems misrepresenting other people’s positions and words.
This is me, being genuinely more than a little surprised and disappointed at the whole debacle, and specifically at the behavior of folks who, along with me, have been on the receiving end of the exact same behavior from other folks who wish to strip us of other rights. I imagine there is some appropriate quote that could be fielded in this instance (if nothing else, something about staring contests with really deep holes), but I am just not feeling it at the moment.
What I will do is point out two comments from Martha Boggs, the owner of The Bistro at the Bijou, and the first one may surprise her supporters:
Boggs actually agrees with her critics. She says she handled the situation the wrong way.
"It wasn’t really the right way to do it. It wasn’t the best method. But at least it got something that needed to be discussed, discussed," said Boggs.
[Update] Apparently, according to a robo-email MarkofaFreeMan received from Martha Boggs’ email address, the above blockquote is in error or is a misrepresentation of her words:
Despite what may have been mis-reported in local media I do not regret my actions in the least.
Apparently Martha is content being a hypocritical, discriminatory jackass. So be it. I tend not to visit establishments staffed/run by those. [/Update]
"Passionately" and "heatedly" kicking someone out of your establishment does absolutely nothing to alter the differences of opinion you may be having with that person, and the animosity exposed may, in fact, increase whatever chasm separates the two of you. Damned if I am one to lecture someone else about being dispassionate when it comes to dealing with dicks (and mark me: Stacey Campfield falls under that heading), but more often than not, I am not trying to convert them, only ridicule them; I dare say Martha has different goals in mind.
When it comes to achieving those goals, however, it would help her immensely if she knew what she was talking about. Again, courtesy of Rich, we have a wonderful cherry to go on top of this steaming pile of suck and fail, in the form of a direct quote from Martha:
If there was a group of people, it would be discrimination if it was a group of people. But he is an individual. There was a Ku Klux Klan rally outside my front door last year. I had both sides of those people in here.
… *headdesk*.
To begin with, Martha has already admitted it was discrimination, and "unfair" discrimination at that, so backpeddling at this point is just pathetic. I would have significantly more respect for Martha, especially given my position on discrimination in general (which I could swear I had harped on enough in my previous post on the topic, but I guess "TL;DR" is the internet standard now), if she simply owned up to her actions and moved on.
Second, really? You really want to trot out the "some of my friends are black" defense? God help you.
And, finally, let us examine this word everyone keeps yammering about – discrimination:
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
And since that definition links to discriminate, so shall I:
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
In other words, discrimination can only be against an individual. Furthermore, while Stacey’s credibility is not exactly something I would bet anything on, apparently only you and he were privy to your conversation, and he contends that your request for him to leave included something approximating, "You are a homophobe. I am not serving you." If this is true – and your later interviews wherein you state you were "standing up" for homosexuals would tend to substantiate it – your behavior unquestionably meets the definition of "discrimination".
Get over it already.
But, then, I am not one who is dedicated to reducing certain types of discrimination – in fact, as I clearly stated, I am quite comfortable with people and businesses discriminating as they see fit – so I am not trapped in your current, hypocritical position of wanting to reduce discrimination for some people by discriminating against other people. Such a predicament certainly does explain your rationalizations, but it does not excuse them.
I saw a reply to this story(don’t remember where) that said people who claim to be nondiscriminatory towards opposing views lose their marbles when they actually find someone with an opposing view. I have personally been on the receiving end of this, so I agree wholeheartedly.
I’ve found that people like this (and I do believe that everyone does this to some degree) are set in their beliefs, period. You could provide evidence contrary, and they’ll stick to their guns (or try to take yours). I have a buddy who did the same thing- he follows the old line of “guns r bad, mk”, spouting all the same stuff the Brady Bunch does on a regular basis. At one point he was saying our gun ‘culture’ should be reigned in because of crime in Mexico. I brought up Fast and Furious (which was like 2 weeks old at the time) and the fallacy of ‘all crime in Mexico = American guns’, and he agreed with the sources… AND REFUSED TO RECANT HIS POINT OF VIEW.
So yeah, tl;dr- this Boggs chick is probably a raving lunatic that magically survives the world.
The Lib-Cong are just really open-minded and tolerant, aren’t they?
@ the dude: That was actually something Campfield himself said regarding the situation (though, speaking of, I share his and her surprise at how widely this story has spread – behold the power of the intertubes).
And, to be fair to all parties involved (which is more than either of them can do, and more than most defending Boggs can manage), some (but not all) of the things Campfield said were demonstrably and factually incorrect. However, given Boggs’ claimed motivations for kicking him out, might her goals have been better achieved if she had sat down and discussed those factual errors with him in a reasonable and polite tone?
Lord if I know, but damned near anything would have been better than what she did (as she now admits).
@ MAJ Mike: Sure. As long as you share their opinions…
Linoge, you’re trying to use the word “discriminate” as a gotcha word. You’re using one word to make two different things equivalent.
If a Jew applies for a job and they say “we don’t hire your kind here” that’s discrimination. It’s dictionary definition #2 above.
If I ask Jennifer Aniston on a date and she turns me down because I’m no Brad Pitt that’s discrimination. It’s dictionary definition #3 above.
Using the same word for both isn’t fooling anyone with a brain.
[...] Walls of the city: Apparently, for some people, some discrimination is a-ok so long as they disagree with the person being discriminated against but it should be strictly, legally verboten in any situations they feel appropriate (in other words, logical/internal consistency fail), while those those same people (and others) have no problems misrepresenting other people’s positions and words. [...]
No, Les, I did not and am not, and if you had, once again, bothered to read my entire post, and actually pay attention to the words I used (much less the definitions you seem so eager to point to), you would understand why not, instead of looking like the fool still clinging to his strawmen despite them already being burned out.
Frankly, I am getting tired of, and more than a little disappointed with, being used as a puppet for what you want me to have said, as opposed to what I actually said. Given I have no feasible way of arguing against or with the former, if you are unwilling to actually address the latter, there is simply no point in this conversation continuing.
What part of your words have I misunderstood?
“Apparently, for some people, some discrimination is a-ok so long as they disagree with the person being discriminated against but it should be strictly, legally verboten in any situations they feel appropriate (in other words, logical/internal consistency fail), while those those same people (and others) have no problems misrepresenting other people’s positions and words.”
And you linked to my blog post in the above. My comment pointed out that you’re mixing up different kinds of discrimination and acting as if they’re the same thing.
Stop discriminating against my opinion, you discriminator. See what I did there?
You’ve really chosen a bizarre hill to die on. Going down fighting for Stacey Campfield is like going down fighting for the Westboro Baptist Church. Maybe you should chalk this up to poor fight selection and move on.
Except I am not. Which is why this is so pointless.
Wow. You really have not been paying attention. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Run along now – the adults have better things to do.
(Helpful hint in case you have any desire to redeem yourself: my objections have jack-all to do with the players on the field. You sure are fixated on him, though…)