Gay Marriage, Boycotts, Banana Splits

If you haven’t driven down Arden Way in a while then you may not have seen the protest going on in front of Leatherby’s.  Why protest delicious ice cream, you ask?  Well, it appears that the Leatherby family and business donated almost $20,000 to the Yes on 8 cause.  The Leatherby’s, an immense Catholic family, are seeing some blowback from their financial support of a proposition that some see as an issue of opinion, and others see as an issue of basic human rights.

I won’t comment on the Prop 8 issue as that has already been argued ad nauseum here,  here, and here.  But I will say this.  I wouldn’t spend my money at the Leatherby’s Family Creamery even if they donated all their proceeds to buy hopes and dreams for child insomniacs.  The truth is that Leatherby’s just isn’t that good.  And it never has been.  Their ice cream is fine, but not special.  Their food is abysmal.  The service of the slow-limbed teenage crew that works there is infuriating.  And the filthy stickiness of the tables, the chairs, the floors, and all other surfaces is more than a bit off putting.

On the other hand, it’s a totally acceptable place if you have a party of children with you who wish for nothing more than giant, whipped cream covered, nut crusted, ice cream monstrosities.  Also, if none of the adults in your party are looking for good food or good service, then it’s totally acceptable too, as long as none of the adults in your party happen to be gay.

Leatherby’s-   2333 Arden Way, Sacramento

Food* Service* Atmosphere*

33 thoughts on “Gay Marriage, Boycotts, Banana Splits”

  1. Yeah, with the real estate market doing so well right now I’m sure they’ll be able to get their product out there with all these open houses!

    Like

  2. That’s pretty harsh, sac-eats. My first job was at a Leatherbys, and although this makes me a bit fond of the business and family, I think there are worse places to boycott. At least this isn’t a multinational corporation, it’s a locally owned and operated family business. Cut them some slack.

    Also, just because someone voted yes on Prop 8 doesn’t mean he or she is a gay-hater. I really think it is a matter of opinion. This is what makes our country great; we can all express our beliefs without persecution. This whole thing is getting way out of control. I wish people would just let it go and focus on other things. Jeez!

    Like

  3. Suzy…If the citizens of California expressed their “opinion” in such a way that kept you from marrying the person you loved, would you be able to just “let it go and focus on other things”? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

    Like

  4. As if getting served a “glass of ice water” in a plastic thimble, isn’t enough to keep me from going there…

    Like

  5. I love the fact that you wrapped this up almost like it was a restaurant review and not a editorial…

    Seriously, even one star? For what??

    Like

  6. Jonora, anyone can get married, it’s just that the state and feds won’t recognize it as anything but a civil union for two people of the same sex.

    I voted NO on Prop 8, but the increasing nastiness of the NO side is making me sad and sick. If given the chance, I would probably change my vote. And it has nothing to do with how I feel about gays in general.

    Like

  7. “I wish they’d get over it and get on with their lives”…heard by thousands of blacks as they protested their wish to have equal rights back in the day…even after the vote.

    I disagree with boycotting with signs out front. Not a good thing IMO.

    I’ve never eaten at Leatherby’s and I won’t. I let my pocketbook speak for me.

    Like

  8. Adamant, the YES supporters noted that if 8 did not pass, they expected to sponsor a wide-ranging boycott of all “gay friendly” businesses in California. So yeah, there still would have been protests.

    Suzy, you would change your vote and vote to strip people of their rights due to the character of the protests? I’m not sure I understand. So because people are angry and protesting, that makes you think they don’t deserve the right to get married, but before they protested they did?

    So, you’d rather they just shut up and take their lumps, is that what you’re saying?

    My wife has a good friend who is a Leatherby. She is just so sick and disgusted by the actions of her family, it’s really sad. Too bad you can’t divorce your family, I guess, no matter how cruel they are.

    Like

  9. I have read about this issue all day, and I’ve learned a lot. I’m fascinated at how polarizing this issue is. Yes, I did vote NO on Prop 8, because I think that two people should be able to marry. But then I learned that most of the “rights” they claim to through this proposition will not be gained, because federal law still does not recognize civil unions. Same sex couples can legally be joined in a civil union. People in a civil union have most of the same rights as married people, including filing joint tax returns, having IRAs transferred, etc. Only a few things, such as estate taxes, are still not applicable for civil unions.

    But moreso than that is the real vile and hatred that is pouring out of this very vocal minority. For people who claim that love has no boundaries, they sure are quick to turn to hatred of anyone who disagrees with them. We all have a right to an opinion, and many of my family and friends disagree with me on many issues. But I still love them, and I don’t retreat to calling them names like “bigots” just because they have different opinions than me. It just seems to me that there are so many issues that are more worthy of fighting for, than for this silly thing. Animal and child abuse, violence in the home, crime rates, carjackings, the fact that most people in the world don’t have enough to eat, etc. etc. Just seems so silly and frivolous. That’s my take. You may leave it as you wish.

    Like

  10. Suzy, you misread. The DOMA still does not recognize joint tax returns on the federal level – only the state. In fact, under DOMA, a joint fed return is actually legall fraud!

    Yes, a very vocal minority. I daresay that if you had a boot on your neck, you’d be vocal too. Or would you just lie down and let your rights be walked all over? Would you lie down and let anyone else’s rights be stripped away?

    Calling someone a bigot if they ARE a bigot is perfectly fine. Let’s be accurate here – if someone advocates taking a right away from someone who has the right just because of their social class – well, that is bigotry, isn’t it? I don’t think the reason really matters. You can still love a bigot; I have family members who I know will never change, but we have to be realistic about this. Saying, well, I love them and they’re good people in other ways, so how can they be a bigot? is kind of dishonest and, frankly, irresponsible.

    The minute we allow bigotry to be socially acceptable is the minute things like Prop 8 pass. If we didn’t allow it, it wouldn’t happen.

    Look in the dictionary – the word is not being misused. You can put it in scare quotes to imply you don’t believe it’s accurate, but unfortunately the English language disagrees with you, and I daresay it will win this argument.

    Just because you love your friends & family doesn’t make them non-bigots. Are only people you hate allowed to be bigots? I don’t think so. This kind of NIMBY attitude is pretty pathetic, but that’s just my opinion.

    Like

  11. Sorry, but I wouldn’t expect Suzy to be able to discern the difference between the two kinds of law if she’s working at the intellectual level where she would vote against something she believed in because its followers turn her off.

    Like

  12. From Google, I typed define: bigot. These are the results.

    “Definitions of bigot on the Web:

    a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    One strongly loyal to one’s own social group, and irrationally intolerant or disdainful of others
    en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigot

    Narrow minded or prejudice in your beliefs.
    http://www.godonthe.net/dictionary/b.html

    Intolerant person: somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept …
    http://www.creationism.co.uk/index.php/Main/Definitions

    A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to an opinion …
    http://www.iyfradio.com/reference.htm

    Draw your own inferences. I think those definitions cut both ways with respect to the no/yes on 8 extremists.

    Like

  13. OK, and here’s Merriam-Webster’s:
    one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    This is different than the ones posted by TMc… in those cases, anyone who is passionate about an issue would be a bigot. So, am I a bigot because I believe in a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion? Or because I think people should adopt pets rather than buy one from a breeder? Or I am intolerant of people who commit crimes against children or animals? No.

    I think the key word in the M-W definition is “hatred.” I don’t hate anybody, regardless of their sexual orientation. But it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that we here in America have nothing better to do that to try to force our government to sanction something that people are already free to do. We are all free to eat, sleep and mate how we want, without penalty. I think we should be happy that we live in the safest, most prosperous, freest country in the world. In many countries, practicing a certain religion, expressing an opinion, or even dressing a certain way can get you in serious (even life-threatening) trouble. Why can’t we just enjoy our freedoms and appreciate how far we’ve gone? I think that we eventually will get there. But there is a time for change, and apparently most of California thinks this isn’t the time.

    Like

  14. I was at the rally on Saturday (pro-gay marriage) and I didn’t see anyone acting in a hateful manner to those opposing their views (yes on 8 people).

    I don’t know where these hateful pro-gay marriage people are…unless you are talking about the minority of them who are vocally and angrily boycotting and protesting. I’ve seen some loud protests..but none were angry or mean-spirited. “ugly and vile?” You need to attend a gay pride parade and watch how ugly and vile those “religious-sign carrying protesters” are!!! Now that is ugly and vile…and very loud!

    Like

  15. Actually, I just moved from SF two months ago, I am quite familiar with the city and its events, and I had no problem with any of it, it was amusing, to say the least. The gay community is very open and loving, until they feel they are being persecuted. Then things get ugly. Things are starting to get very ugly…. yes, vile and ugly because they are labeling everyone who disagrees with them as “bigots.” Please know that not everyone who supports the gay community is anti-prop 8. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Just like not every Jewish person is pro-Israel.

    What is even more interesting to me is that people are comparing the gay community with the blacks of the civil rights movement. But who were the major supporters of Prop 8? Black and Hispanic people, the same people who had to fight for their rights before. Definitely something to think about.

    Like

  16. I hope that Rainbow Sherbet line is a joke because if it’s not, it’s depressing, and if it is, it’s absolutely brilliant.

    Like

  17. Suzy quoted Merriam-Webster’s definition of “bigot,” well, part of it. She conveniently left out the first part which is, “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” That is very similar to the other definitions provided.

    Like

  18. I don’t think it’s particularly productive to call well-meaning persons like Eckern and Suzy (who did, after all, vote against Prop 8) “bigots”, whether it’s technically correct or not, considering the popular connotation the word has taken. I do think she’s lazy in an intellectual and civic sense, though,. Seriously, we should “think about” why blacks voted for Prop. 8, because they know what a civil rights fight really means, and therefore, they know better than anyone what civil rights are about?

    Wow.

    Like

  19. Yeah, Dan, that hurts. I’ve never been labeled “intellectually lazy.” I’ve had a hell of a lot of schooling; but the point is, I really think deeply about these issues and my sense of justice–and my sense of right and wrong–has been knocked off kilter by this issue.

    But I’m glad I made YOU think.

    Like

  20. It’s very very simple. Denying a group of citizens legal rights because of race, religion, gender, disability, economic status, or sexual orientation is wrong. End of story.

    Like

  21. I’m just confused about this whole thing. I thought the entire point of a Constitution was to grant rights, not to take them away.

    Is nobody else worried that the Christians will take away everyone else’s rights if they are successful with this? Or am I just crazy?

    Like

  22. Right on Jonora! What say you, me, Dan, Melly and SuzyChapstick all get hitched? We’ll all live in a house donated (forcably) by Babs Striesand. Every night we can sing songs around the campfire, roast baby seals (it’ll be part of our religion), and build wheelchair ramps for the homeless to live in.

    Like

  23. Moe- the Constitution takes abilities away from the government to do things. The flip side is that those rights are ‘possed to be preserved for the people. Like the ability of the govt. to print money in any form other than backed directly by gold. Uh… Forget that- Lets do another one: Like the part of the constitution that prohibits Congress from passing any law that “abridges freedom of speech.” So Congress could never pass a law that, say… prevented you from protesting at military funerals! Is this one of the rights you are afraid “the Christians” will take away if they are successful with this?

    Like

  24. OK, I can dig your slant on it, although that’s an interesting framing. But do you think the Constitution should be used to take rights only away from SOME law-abiding American adults, but not others?

    Do you think the Constitution should be used as a tool to specifically take rights away from a group & create a new civil rights underclass, or do you think it should be used to give addition rights – or at least make consistent grants to – all Americans?

    I’m not worried about those rights being taken away, TS, but I am worried that they’ll take away other rights from me. Believe me, as a Jew, I know all about rights being taken away.

    Like

  25. As a wood-burning Sacramenten, I feel your pain. 2 years ago, my “right” to burn wood in my fireplace whever I wanted to was stripped away by a small but vocal group of self-styled “environmentalists.” There, they didn’t even have to use the constitution- they just added a rule to the Sacramento County rulebook- didn’t even ask me. Created a whole underclass of either cold people or closet or wood burning lawbreakers, while them gas burning people are all smug and warm. I guess I’ll have to get a “They can have my firelog when they pry it from my dead smouldering hand” bumper stickers.
    So yes- the system of law creates a process whereby society may regulate which behavour(s) people may engage in, or force others to recognise as protected. I don’t like some of the regulations, but I don’t go attacking the gas/propane industry, or accusing them of hating me.
    You gotta consider- from the “churchies” point of view- where will it all end? If THIS line is crossed, what is next? Is nothing sacred? This might not be the line most poeple would draw, but its a nice clear line, and not wanting to continually expand “liberal social rights” requires a line.

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: