i did sorta get pulled off topic with that inquiry by angelo, but it was a perfectly reasonable question, so i ended up getting side-tracked and it did remind me of another thread i am going to start with a theme that is even present in this post which is how do we justify/alter our belief systems when they clash w/another of our beliefs. in this case i take exception to the grove's "banning" manny p. from appearing there in an interview after voicing his opinion of gay marraige.
part of the reason i had a change in beliefs in gay marraige, i documentated above and it basically came down to as a self-professed libertarian and all-around good guy human being i couldn't possibly justify the right for two consenting people to establish a relationship and my feelings on it would be, SHOULD BE as irrevelent as a gay man's (or womens) opinion on any heterosexual relationship i had....as long as it was consentual, and consentual is the key word here, otherwise one could justify all kinds of behavior.
My original (unmentioned) point: I thought the grove's banning of manny p. is somewhat self-serving and pandering to a certain important demographic ( still do) because had grove management said nothing, chances are the demographic in question (the gay community in nearby west hollywood) would have had some things to say about future patronage and that probably would have the shopping center concerned. do i know this for a fact? no i do not. just an theory, But why couldn't the grove just distance itself from manny's opinion with that disclaimer you see/hear on some interview programs...the following view does not necessarily reflect, yadda,yadda,yadda ??
the point is is that as is usually the case, money talks and bs walks. i'm sure if manny wanted to spend some dough there, the mangement would find a face-saving way out and even if the gay community did get up in arms and threaten some kind of boycott/protest(completely hypothetical boys and ghouls) the grove would offer some kind of mea culpa in the form of discounts or something and all would be forgiven and all would be nice-nice again
herein lies my problem: i have to consider, as distasteful as it is to me, if the grove property is a privately-held property (the ones with those little brass plaques in the ground that establish the right to revoke permisson of passage or whatever they say, i don't pay a lot of attention to them) then they should be able to take whatever action they deem necessary...a public gathering place is another animal...the libertarian in me thinks that if I said something even moderately distasteful in this forum,the moderators would have every right to ban me, even without an explanation, being a private forum. i do appreciate the even headedness here and the restraint the moderators show, but it's their forum and their call, i would have to respect their decision and take my semi-coherent meandering posts elsewhere. i really belief and respect this position
and this is to be the main point of a thread that i am working on , our belief systems and those pesky inconvient truths, the ones that pop up and cause conflict with what you thought was an established belief system. the thing i am working on though is i am also working on another similar theme in that i wanted to ask the skeptics why they are skeptical on paranormal phenomena, besides the usual need to see it, touch it, see it kind of thing, which i respect but i had a question to that sentiment and i have to be ready to back it up with why i "believe," or want to belief, so that's three different aspects i have to tackle so it may be a few days before i get it all settled out
I would have been really pissed had some little "hitler" told me what I could wear in a public mall. Now, I'm not commenting on the alledged homophobia of this man. But, once we go that route I'm afraid we are going down a slippery slope. Freedom of speech and expression these days seems to be. "Whatever, I agree with or the powers that be allow is free" otherwise, not so much.
