Gay businessmen host Ted Cruz, face backlash

How many people here in P&CE have explained that they came to accept gay marriage, women's rights and different cultures through exposure to people who broadened their worldview? Yet a long-time activist tries to put that message into practice and sees their business punished because of that attempt?

Tolerance. It sure doesn't mean what it used to mean.

Two gay businessmen face backlash because they chose to host a political candidate in a democracy? Bit harsh perhaps.

BenPanced said:

The backlash stems from Cruz's vehement anti-gay sentiment. Please check out the link I provided in my OP as one prime example.

Click to expand...

I did. And I understand the backlash against him. But less so against the couple. The man is a jerk but at present is a legitimate figure in a democracy. But I might feel differently when I haven't had a glass or two of rum and chocolate milk

BenPanced said:

Unless they're Log Cabin Republicans (GLBT Republicans who are as fiscally conservative as the garden variety but much, much more socially liberal) the couple really didn't need to give Cruz any sort of platform based on his views, no matter how fair they wanted to be.

Click to expand...

Anyone arguing need is being silly. And you're not arguing it, Ben. I get that.

At the same time, why deride them for wanting to (potentially) engage a major presidential candidate?

I personally applaud the businessmen trying to have a conversation with someone so diametrically opposed to them.

Gently on with one another, please, folks.

One thing? From the link, and from Mr. Reisner:

"I was given the opportunity to have a candid conversation with Senator Ted Cruz on where he stood on issues including the state of Israel and national security, which are the only places where we share common ground.

Click to expand...

If I had the opportunity to find out why one of the most influential assholes in politics felt the way he/she did? I hope I'd take it. If only for the chance at insights on how to slow him down.

I'd want to talk to anyone who is powerful and influential, to try to understand them, if for no other reason than to more effectively oppose them. But also because so often we only know a caricature of what "the enemy" believes.

If I had a chance to go back in time and talk to Hitler, I'd do it. (Okay, maybe in that case I'd want to bring a gun... but let's say that's not an option.) I'd talk to Osama Bin Laden or Vladimir Putin or Edward Snowden. If I were a billionaire and I could get important people to come have dinner with me so I could figure out what makes them tick (and if there was some way to influence them toward my way of thinking), why wouldn't I do that?

BenPanced said:

The backlash stems from Cruz's vehement anti-gay sentiment.

Click to expand...

To put it mildly.

• Overturn Supreme Court with anti-gay marriage Amendment. (Oct 2014)
• Opposes gay pride parades and opposes gay marriage. (Feb 2012)
• One-man-one-woman marriage is building block of society. (Jul 2011)
• Supports defining traditional marriage. (Oct 2012)
• Sponsored state definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage. (Feb 2014)

Intolerant Ted on the idea of marching in gay pride parades:

At least twice while serving as Dallas' mayor, Republican Tom Leppert marched in Dallas' gay pride parade. Opponent Ted Cruz has hammered Leppert for joining the marches. Cruz said, "When a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride that's a statement and it's not a statement I agree with."

Click to expand...

BenPanced said:

Consorting with the enemy.

Click to expand...

To his eternal regret, Malcolm X and the Black Muslims did just that when they held discussions with George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party about creating a separate Black state in America or the Nazi's preference they go back to Africa.

From its inception the ANP (American Nazi Party) had referred to African Americans as “niggers” and had affirmed the premise that they were mentally inferior to whites, but Rockwell became enchanted with the idea of a coalition; Nazis and Black Muslims could be allies, since they both sought the same goal—separation of the races.

On Sunday, June 25, 1961, Rockwell and ten troopers attended a Black Muslim rally at Uline Arena in Washington. They watched in awe as convoys of chartered buses unloaded hundreds of passengers outside the arena and the Muslim vendors made a killing on official souvenirs and literature. The Nazis were frisked at the door of the arena by several well-dressed but stern-looking Fruit of Islam guards—the Gestapo of the Nation of Islam. A special guard greeted Rockwell, said into his walkie-talkie that the “big man was coming now,” and escorted them to seats near the stage in the center, surrounded by eight thousand Black Muslims. They were encircled by black journalists, who wanted to know Rockwell’s thoughts. He told reporters he considered the Muslims “black Nazis.” “I am fully in concert with their program and I have the highest respect for Mr. Elijah Muhammad.” Rockwell pointed out his only disagreement with the Muslims was over territory. ‘‘They want a chunk of America and I prefer that they go to Africa.”

After several introductory speakers, Malcolm X stepped to the microphone to deliver a talk entitled “Separation or Death.” “Muslims are not for integration and not for segregation.” Looking up at the audience as if to beg the question, he asked what they “were for.” The audience shouted “Separation.” Rockwell and the troopers vigorously applauded. Later when the audience was asked for donations, Rockwell contributed $20.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there were Jews who thought if only they could sit down with Hitler they could convince him to change their evil ways. It's laudable to try and reach out to those whom despise your existence, but when the peaceful lamb sits down with the hungry wolf it's doubtful they will agree on what's for dinner.

Amadan said:

I'd want to talk to anyone who is powerful and influential, to try to understand them, if for no other reason than to more effectively oppose them. But also because so often we only know a caricature of what "the enemy" believes.

If I had a chance to go back in time and talk to Hitler, I'd do it. (Okay, maybe in that case I'd want to bring a gun... but let's say that's not an option.) I'd talk to Osama Bin Laden or Vladimir Putin or Edward Snowden. If I were a billionaire and I could get important people to come have dinner with me so I could figure out what makes them tick (and if there was some way to influence them toward my way of thinking), why wouldn't I do that?

Click to expand...

What makes you think they wouldn't influence you toward their way of thinking?

Let's remember Cruz is an experienced college debater. Nobody going to change his way of thinking they are bringing a superior argument to the table. Cruz simply ignores the table as well as the argument.

Maybe they would influence me. It seems unlikely, but sure. So, we should avoid talking to people with the wrong views for fear they will infect our minds?

nighttimer said:

What makes you think they wouldn't influence you toward their way of thinking?

Click to expand...

Amadan said:

Maybe they would influence me. It seems unlikely, but sure. So, we should avoid talking to people with the wrong views for fear they will infect our minds?

Click to expand...

~~~waves hand discreetly~~~

These are not the droids you're looking for.

Amadan said:

Maybe they would influence me. It seems unlikely, but sure. So, we should avoid talking to people with the wrong views for fear they will infect our minds?

Click to expand...

Define "wrong views" please.

I believe the Koch Brothers have "the wrong views". I don't believe there is anything I could say which would influence them and the only thing they could say which would influence me is lots and lots of the money they will never run out of. I can't be bought, but I am available for rent.

What it comes down is if I'm a believer in my principles, they aren't going to be altered by a conversation. It's going to take an epiphany where my principles are proven not to be different, but wrong. You're not going to change Ted Cruz's mind about gay rights when he has absolutely no reason to and if those two businessmen have the sense God gave an earthworm they should know buying Cruz's dinner isn't going to mean shit.

Nothing wrong with talking to people with the wrong views. I doubt talking is going to influence either one of us.

nighttimer said:

Nothing wrong with talking to people with the wrong views. I doubt talking is to going to influence either one of us.

Click to expand...

Probably not. On the other hand, every experience one has is an influence of some kind. One doesn't necessarily talk to someone because you think you're going to logic them into an abrupt change of course, or strike them with an epiphany. Maybe talking to someone plants a seed that takes years and lots of other conversations to germinate. Or you are part of that process.

Or maybe you are just curious to hear what they say when you ask a direct question.

Point being, I don't think it's productive to say "Do not talk to this person because he is the enemy."

nighttimer said:

Nothing wrong with talking to people with the wrong views. I doubt talking is to going to influence either one of us.

Click to expand...

Not until The Device is complete, at least...

BenPanced said:

Prominent Jewish Republicans Host Fundraiser For U.S. Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson
Yeah, it's not about showing respect and opening dialogue.

Click to expand...

That does put them in a different light, doesn't it? Fiscal conservative/social liberal? Maybe profit before people? dunno.

Amadan said:

If I had a chance to go back in time and talk to Hitler, I'd do it. (Okay, maybe in that case I'd want to bring a gun... but let's say that's not an option.)

Click to expand...

You can never tell how history goes until it happens. Maybe it was some glib time-traveler that flattered Hitler and talked him into opening that second front against Stalin? That would have been more use than simply shooting him, because another of his people would just have stepped up. Or, Hitler was a writer: persuade him that the world needs another book. Right now. That would slow him down.

Last graph of the story:

I’d like to invite people – all people – to come out of the closet and join me in affirming that open, honest, respectful dialogue is the only path forward.

Click to expand...

This is a sentiment I can get behind, whether or not I can get behind the person saying it. We, none of us, is just one thing.

Agreed, Williebee. I disagree fervently with Hillary Clinton, but would applaud a GOP group inviting her to speak (and her accepting). I chided Obama for what I thought was a lecturing, not a discussing, speech when he attended... what was that?... the GOP Congressional Caucus? Anyway, Republicans attended, he spoke. I didn't like what he said, nor how, but I applaud that he went, and they listened, or at least sat and let him speak.

Discussion does involve, you know, talking.

Amadan said:

Probably not. On the other hand, every experience one has is an influence of some kind. One doesn't necessarily talk to someone because you think you're going to logic them into an abrupt change of course, or strike them with an epiphany. Maybe talking to someone plants a seed that takes years and lots of other conversations to germinate. Or you are part of that process.

Or maybe you are just curious to hear what they say when you ask a direct question.

Point being, I don't think it's productive to say "Do not talk to this person because he is the enemy."

Click to expand...

Williebee said:

Last graph of the story:

This is a sentiment I can get behind, whether or not I can get behind the person saying it. We, none of us, is just one thing.

Click to expand...

At the height of the civil rights struggle when Martin Luther King, Jr. was struggling to come up with a strategy to galvanize the movement, I suppose he could have squelched the Bloody Sunday march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and begged Governor George Wallace for a sit-down beer summit to reconcile their differences.

Somehow, I'm fairly certain King would conclude trying to talk to a man who stands in the door of a schoolhouse to block Black children and proclaims, "Segregation forever!" would be a waste of time. Between two men with diametrically opposing views, there's nothing to talk about.

Ted Cruz is a staunch opponent of gay rights and there is nothing anyone can say which will lessen his opposition.

It's nice to want to reach out but if the other side isn't interesting in reaching back, it's a pointless gesture.

nighttimer said:

Ted Cruz is a staunch opponent of gay rights and there is nothing anyone can say which will lessen his opposition.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to criticize anyone for opening a dialog with an enemy to their cause, and I can't really judge this situation, being so far outside it.

However, I both agree and disagree with this statement. First, I do agree that his mind and views were not going to be changed by this talk. I think you can appeal to reason and empathy when you talk to an individual. He's not, however, an individual in this regard. He's part of a political machine, and the only thing he responds to is money and votes. That's why I also disagree with this statement. Someone can say enough to change his mind. If popular opinion among his voter base changes, he'll follow suit. We've all seen politicians change deeply held beliefs to get the vote, so it's conservative voters we need to be opening a dialog with.