Boycott of “El Coyote” is Shortsighted
The recent efforts to boycott Los Angeles’ historic El Coyote Mexican Cafe remind me of the Coors beer embargo in the late 90s. The gay community was largely in support of the boycott, but at HERO Magazine, we took some heat for accepting advertising from Coors when it was demonstrated that the company (as distinct from the Coors family) was actually very supportive of LGBT causes.
The best result for an LGBT boycott of El Coyote would be a real apology by the co-owner, Marjorie Christofferson, coupled with an action that shows she’s sincere (e.g., a big donation to the Lambda Legal Defense Fund). A manager at El Coyote told me that the restaurant already plans to make hefty donations (a $10,000 figure was volleyed) to Lambda Legal and the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center.
But I wouldn’t hold your breath for an outright apology from Ms. Christofferson, a lifelong Mormon. She made it clear to me that she would not apologize for her faith, nor could she change her convictions. “I will not [make a contribution to repeal Prop. 8],” she said. “I cannot change a lifetime of faith.”
Watch the video of Ms. Christofferson’s speech, and my follow up question. (Thanks to Lisa Derrick at Firedoglake.com for the video).
The gay community is angry about the passage of Prop. 8, and we have a right to be. We have a right to demonstrate, and yes—even a right to boycott. We can bring giants down if we want to. But I submit that an El Coyote boycott isn’t the right place to put our energy right now.
I personally was moved to tears in the meeting with Christofferson because I understand the deep conflict that her religious convictions can cause. I grew up in Utah, raised by both Mormons and Catholics, and I lost many of my friends after coming out to them 12 years ago. So I could empathize with Marjorie, who was clearly conflicted on the issue. But a boycott would probably put El Coyote out of business and 89 families out of work. Is that the best strategy for winning those undecided minds to our cause? And when the business is gone, then what?
I am in no way advocating that we sit back and go along the Mormon Church’s unacceptable involvement in California politics. But Marjorie Christofferson is not the Mormon Church, she is one person of faith within that church. And now her business is in trouble—she is more aware than ever that her actions have consequences.
Ask yourself: Is there any amount of money she could donate to our cause that would quell our anger? I doubt it. It goes much, much deeper than a $100 campaign contribution. —Sam Page
November 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
yes, her actions have consequences! she should be made to realize that the hard way. it is her, who is hurting el coyote’s employees, not the boycotters. if her actions, supported by her church, make her life come crashing down around her, she might reconsider changing her faith.
seriously? no sympathy there! none at all! she brought this on herself. if she doesn’t understand that she is hurting people and continueing to do so – scr*w her.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Being gay is not a choice. Being hateful is!
November 13th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
[...] and sisters, we are off-topic, not to mention, losing style points. This is not a Marjorie Christofferson issue. It’s not an El Coyote issue. It’s a civil rights issue. We need to [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“A manager at El Coyote told me that the restaurant already plans to make hefty donations…”
Congratulations on browbeating and extorting money out of an old woman. What’s next? Are you going to shoot her dog since “she would not apologize for her faith”? Maybe send her to gay reeducation camp?
How about just charging her a Dhimmi tax for operating in YOUR city? Even fascists need an income, right? No doubt there are other eateries in the area that need your “approval”.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
With all due respect, if you read my editorial (above) you would know that I’ve said a boycott of this particular restaurant is shortsighted (hence the headline).
Your choice of the terms “browbeating” and “extortion” puzzles me. The restaurant offered to make these donations–they were not cajoled, browbeaten or dragged.
Let’s keep it real, shall we?
November 14th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
[...] Still, there were some dissenting voices in the room. One woman compared the angry gathering to Nazi Germany, when Hitler’s military singled out individual Jews in a witch hunt for their religious beliefs. “Why are we singling out one restaurant?” the woman asked. “Are you ready to go up against every single restaurant in the city?” Should the gay community boycott El Coyote? [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Knock the boycott of Coors if you want, but it nearly drove Coors out of business. Coors has gone from being a homophobic right wing company to one that funds gay pride events in Denver and offers domestic partner benefits. Coors still has issues but boycotts can be a force for positive results. No one is asking her to give up her faith, she can still believe gay marriage is wrong… but our money (and it is our money, no one can make us spend where we don’t want to) should not be given to causes that hurt us… she need only not fund our enemies and she would be ok. I am sorry for all the worker families that might be innocent, but our families should not have to suffer either. And yes boycott Jet Blue, and yes boycott Marriott… our money should not be used against us.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
http://www.bamn.com/boycott-coors/coors-myths-facts.asp
Myth: Coors is a model of pro-gay workplace practices and shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of a few ultraconservative family members.
Fact: In 1977 lesbian/gay businesses joined an AFL-CIO boycott of Coors, citing Coors’ history of support for attacks on gay rights. Sales of Coors beer plummeted in the gay community. In response, in 1978 Coors adopted language against discrimination on account of sexual orientation in employment, and has offered small sums of money to lesbian/gay organizations in order to recover beer sales and improve Coors’ public image. But Coors has never stopped funding right-wing attacks on gay rights.
The lesbian/gay boycott of Coors has hurt Coors so badly that in 1995 Coors was one of the first major corporations to adopt same sex domestic partner benefits. But this did not mean an end to Coors’ continuing financial support for attacks on gay rights.
Improved working conditions for lesbians and gay men at Coors do not include union rights and protection. The Coors Company has destroyed 19 unions since 1960, including the Boilermakers, Ironworkers, Electricians and Plumbers, Pipefitters and Brewers locals. The Coors strategy was to propose an outrageous and unacceptable “final offer,” forcing a union strike. Coors then hired non-union replacements and conducted union decertification elections with a majority scab workforce. Today Coors is the only nonunion mass producer of beer in the country.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Browbeating and extorting money out of an old woman? Really? I believe El Coyote is just one small battle in the war. It is the perfect venue to teach people that, what ever their beliefs, faith statements, moral compass, convictions tell them, you cannot and must not make a living off those you are offending, degrading, damaging in the temporal world. The math is clear. I eat at El Coyote, Ms. Christofferson makes a living from me eating there, she donates to a cause that harms my rights, I therefore just donated to a campaign to take away my rights. Now why would I want to do that? What kind of self hating gay man would that make me. If she is afraid that her business is going to go under, then she needs to make an appeal at the church for them to come and enjoy her food and help her business flourish or flounder. But it is my right and duty as a self respecting gay man to assert my rights and my voice to let people know with in my community (the area I live in, not just the gay community) that this woman who owns this business is going to use her money to take away my rights and possibly yours if it is in contrast to her religious beliefs. The people who hear my voice can make their own choice if it is acceptable to them or not and either support her business or not, thus supporting her views or not. People in this day in age need to take personal responsibility for their actions and if they don’t like the consequences of what they are doing, then they really need to think twice about the people who are going to be hurt. In this case, the people who lost their rights, and the people who might lose their jobs should her business fail. No one’s economic well being should ever be above someone’s civil rights.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Yes, Browbeating. Do think she would have spontaneously handed over a hefty donation if she didn’t feel intimidated by your tactics? In the video, I see a bunch of people essentially conducting a show trial of this woman.
Hey, you don’t want to eat there fine. You want to tell her why? Great, send her a letter. But organize a boycott with the express purpose to drive her out of business or put the hurt on her for disagreeing with your choices? Piss off. And to exact some form of reparations? Sickening.
If I want to go there with my partner, am I going to have to cross a picket line of you crybabies who are upset with the mean lady? Maybe I become as narrow minded as you and refuse to do business with people that don’t share my beliefs. That will make the world a better place.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
TakeFive, your argument is lost on me because you’re basing it on a false premise: that I’m advocating a boycott, and that I don’t want to eat there.
Read the article. That’s not what I said.
You accuse me of “browbeating,” etc. Have you even watched the videos of the meeting? I’d encourage you to do so, because you’ll see that I was nothing but respectful in questioning Ms. Christoffersen.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Sam – I’m not seeing where you are advocating against a boycott:
“The best result for an LGBT boycott of El Coyote…”
and
“Is that the best strategy for winning…”
Not exactly a strong denunciation of the tactic, is it?
Look, this woman came to a line she couldn’t cross, and didn’t what to see society cross either. Does that make her a bad person? Was she unkind to her LBGT patrons? Did she give you menacing stares or spit in your food?
Further, did she in anyway imply that you should be harmed or discriminated against for your lifestyle, or that you shouldn’t be able to cohabitate and enjoy a civil union? No, in her quiet way, she said her belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, as did a majority of California voters.
Let me leave you with this. If you had a parent that said “I can never accept your sexuality, but I will always love you”, would you disown that parent?
November 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
The headline is clear that I’m not advocating a boycott: “Boycott of “El Coyote” is Shortsighted.”
Here are the Cliff’s Notes to my editorial:
“…an El Coyote boycott isn’t the right place to put our energy right now.”
“…a boycott would probably put El Coyote out of business and 89 families out of work. Is that the best strategy for winning those undecided minds to our cause?”
“…and when the business is gone, then what?”
“…Marjorie Christofferson is not the Mormon Church, she is one person of faith within that church.”
I’ll leave you with this: children don’t “disown” parents, parents disown children.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Great job protestors!!! Are you going to support the 89 families that will out of work? Will you hire them? Will you guys allow her to work at a restaurant but not let her own one? Those protesting, YOU are aware that 52 percent of voters supported a ban? Should everyone of those people lose there jobs? Because if it’s okay for her, then it should be okay to do the same thing to everyone. This stupid. There are better ways to go about this. Maybe you won’t burn in hell for being gay, but this has you fast the track. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Sam – your “questioning” of whether the boycott is the right strategy is really just a rhetorical dodge. Take a position man! Say it’s right or wrong.
“Have you even watched the videos …you’ll see that I was nothing but respectful in questioning Ms. Christoffersen”
Yeah you were a real sweetheart and you got video proving what a swell guy you were. Here are the Cliff’s Notes of what YOU wrote:
“…her remarks before a group of about 60 members of Los Angeles’ LGBT community…”
“The tall, frail Christofferson stood in the center of the group. She appeared to be shaking…”
“At several points during her speech, Christofferson simply became too emotional to continue.”
So Mr. Nice Guy, how do you think it feels to be an 80 year-old woman being oh so politely asked to justify yourself in front of a 60 person Truth and Reconciliation committee? One answer is your core beliefs, the other your livelihood.
But here’s the thing. She probably wasn’t thinking about her livelihood, since she’s close to cashing it in. No, she is thinking about her kids who depend on that restaurant to support her grandkids. Or about Rodrigo the busboy with his 7 kids and Christmas just around the corner.
So don’t give me this wobbly soul-searching. Get with your brethren and tell them to knock it off and pick on someone there own size, because this kind of crap is burning up your sympathy capital faster than you realize.
November 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
My mother did not handle my coming out well. She basically said no child of mine is going to be gay. So I left. And did not talk to her again until she came and apologized. Today she totally supports me being gay and my marriage to Randy. So yes… I am willing to boycott my parents.
And as for the families that work at El Coyote, they will find other jobs… but unless prop 8 is repealed, we will still not have our civil rights… who is being hurt more? We are.
Hey Sam, thanks for giving us a place to argue this one out… and keeping us civil.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
TakeFive, I won’t be lectured about the extremity of position I chose to take.
Like Matthew, my mother also didn’t handle my coming out well, and had nearly the same reaction. I do not believe that the expatriation from my family was my doing, I believe it was my parents’ responsibility. Still, I never “disowned” them, because I believe that everyone has a piece of the truth, and because of my belief in the Christian teaching of “turning the other cheek.”
I get that you want me to take a “black” or “white” position, TakeFive, but life isn’t cast in extreme colors. I personally believe that an indicator of intellectual maturity is the ability to deal with shades of gray.
November 19th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
[...] It should be noted that Sam Page thinks an El Coyote boycott is shortsighted and that a Zen-like approach is more [...]