Must not oppose homosexual marriage
Leftist committment to diversity and inclusion?
"A $26,000 contribution to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California appears to have cost a 96-year-old former Mormon temple president his seat on the board that oversees Oakland's historic Paramount Theatre.
Amid rising criticism from the gay community, Mayor Ron Dellums said Tuesday that he was putting on hold the reappointment of Lorenzo Hoopes, most likely signaling an end to Hoopes' 30-plus years on the Paramount board. "The community is asking us to reconsider, and that is what we are going to do," mayoral spokesman Paul Rose said.
Hoopes, a past president of the Mormon temple in Oakland as well as a former Safeway executive, has been on the Paramount board since before the downtown theater was restored in the early 1970s.
Source
Sounds like bigotry to me
8 comments:
Sounds like bigotry to me
Hoopes is the bigot here.
No bigotry here at all, just typical shoot your own foot style leftist retaliation - plus another typical nasty leftist comment.
The man didn't serve for 30 years on this board for the prestige and they'll be hard pressed to find another person with anything near that kind of commitment. And it's all because the homosexual community wants to be petty.
Anon 12:38
Qhy would this make him a bigot? There is no such thing as homosexual marriage. Never has been, never will be. If homosexuals want to have some kind of contract to express their love for each other, they are welcome to do so. Just don't call it a marriage.
Hey, after all, it is Mexifornia, where society's (and nautres) oddballs run the place. This is simply another example of "tolerence" from Leftist gays. As a group, they are probably the most intolerent of all, unless of course, you agree with all their whims and demands.
Fear not. AIDS will save the world!
Would it be bigotry if the board had fired him for contributing $26,000 FOR same-sex marriage instead of against it?
Personally, I'd like to live in a world where making political contributions won't get you fired, but I'm afraid that world doesn't exist.
In a perfect world, one where voters actually think "before" they vote, political contributions (ie: bribery) whould not be necessary, since the only "true" purpose they serve is to corrupt.
Hoopes tried to sway votes against the interests of a group, so he can't complain if some in that group try to sway a vote against him - a taste of his own medicine!
I can understand a particular group exercising their right to lobby their elected officials over a political appointment.
I can also understand people's rights to support (financially and otherwise) causes that they believe in.
Finally I can understand a group expressing concern about the appointment of someone who supports something that they do not.
However, this same group must also accept that this is a two-edged sword. If they would disqualify an eminently qualified person with a long history of public service because he supported a cause they opposed - well, naturally they will be equally comfortable with being excluded from public office for their support of a proposition that was rejected by the majority of voters in California.
It does seem odd that those who support the majority position are the pariahs and the minority are the ones making the agenda.
Post a Comment