It is with regret that we have decided to cancel this year’s edition of the ?#BwayBares? Solo Strips fundraiser, which was scheduled for May 10 at the NYC club 42West.
We do business with and accept fundraising support from a variety of people across a wide spectrum of political and religious affiliations. The rich diversity of our community makes what we do together so special. It is a rare inst...ance where the actions of a donor negatively impacts us as an organization and potentially jeopardizes our relationship with others whose support is integral to our success. But when it does occur, in a way that’s blatantly against all we stand and work for, we can’t pretend it doesn’t come with consequences. Silence is not a neutral position. It is complicit.
We cannot in good conscience hold an event at a venue whose owners have alienated our community, as reflected in Thursday’s New York Times story (http://nyti.ms/1OhUtk6) and today’s follow-up (http://nyti.ms/1OOFCsb).
This is not about partisan politics or punishment. This is about doing what’s right to ultimately ensure that our commitment to the men, women and children we serve cannot be questioned.
"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”
~ Muhammad Ali
Wait. Am I missing something here? Looked up these two gentlemen.
- According to OpenSecrets.org, they have only donated to Dems.
- This was not a fundraiser.
- It was a gathering themed around support for Israel at which, apparently, both Reisner and Weiderpass used the opportunity to also press Cruz on his opposition to marriage equality.
- Reisner apparently hosted a "Ready for Hillary" event earlier this year.
Yeah, they smiled and posed for photos with Cruz instead of - I don't know - covering him in glitter and stomping him to death with a unicorn horn? But aren't they being boycotted and shamed for being willing to try to affect change from within and for attempting (however futile it might be) to work to change the heart(s) and mind(s) of those who stand in the way of progress? You might disagree with their approach or feel that Cruz & co should just be ignored and publicly derided because we've - apparently - already won the culture wars. But, do we have to boycott these men's business because of a disagreement over tactics to achieve the same goal - greater LGBT equality for all?
Actually, they say they do. They seem to be quite stupid people, despite their real-estate and hotelier riches.
The seem to be the stupidest gays in the village, the stupidest gays that ever were.
They paid $10 million for a virtual monopoly on the commercial properties in Fire Island Pines, and now they have the ill will of the community and a boycott on their hands.
Okay, that's fine and all. You think they're stupid - they may be - I certainly haven't spent that much time reading up on them to know if they are. You also think they have unfairly created a monopoly in Fire Island Pines property (as though anything related to Fire Island isn't directly connected to privilege and unfairness - from wealth inequity to body fascism - but whatever), and they're into younger guys one of whom OD'd in their apartment. Did I catch that all? What on earth does that have to do with the supposed reason for this boycott? Or do facts not matter anymore as long as we get to have our social media outrage before the weekend?
He does not go to people's fancy apartments in NYC (a place he loathes) to chit chat about the middle east.
This was a fundraiser.
Unfortunately, in case you have been paying more attention to theatre than the Supreme Court and Congress, most political money is not funneled through "open" secrets anymore. It is all dark money.
The donations by these clowns on open secrets were tiny-$500-1000 toss off contributions to Sean Eldridge, who is Chris Hughes's husband, Clay Aiken and a Hudson Valley congressman. they have no on the record national contributions, and in case you have been paying more attention to the Tony race than political races in New York, supporting anyone but a democrat is a waste of time and money.
Dismiss what you want. Denial is not a river in egypt.
Hogan, again, that's all conjecture. Is it likely that Cruz or his team directly or indirectly solicited donations (or promises of support) at this event? Sure. But to say with certainty that these gentlemen are lying to us and DID donate to his campaign and/or solicit funds on his behalf without a shred of proof is pushing it. Looking back at their record of support and advocacy for organizations like the Service Member's Legal Defense Fund, BCEFA, God's Love Delivers, AMFAR, HRC etc is not even remotely possible that what they're telling us is the truth - that they had an opportunity to set up a dinner with Ted Cruz themed on Israeli security and used that opportunity to also press him on his opposition to marriage equality? I'm not saying I know with 100% certainty that what they're saying is 100% accurate, but how can you be so sure it isn't? Because your gut tells you? Because they're wealthy? Because they bought too much property in Fire Island? I'm so confused about how it's all black and white.
Pinto, they are not. But on the continuum between horrible and terrific they are not usually homophobic, and not usually against gay rights. And Cruz is on the low end of the continuum even among republicans. Most importantly perhaps, as it relates to BCEFA, republicans are against everything that BCEFA stands for and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of AIDS victims, something that an organization like BCEFA is not going to ignore when two rich gays decide that their support for Israel somehow excuses fraternizing with someone as loathsome as Ted Cruz.
Maybe they've read this research on the science of persuasion and changing hearts and minds on hot button social issues like marriage equality? (I know you won't read it)
No one in their right mind thinks they are going to change Ted Cruz's mind on the subject and manifestly that's not what this was about. This was NOT about changing minds; it was about raising money for a presidential campaign by pandering to AIPAC's big guns.
Hogan, I'm not suggesting it was a realistic prospect. But, let's face it. Some Republican politicians say they're against marriage equality to appease their base when they either don't really care about the issue or actually feel that everyone should get to marry. Obama and Hilary did it, I imagine there are some Repubs in that boat right now. A minority, probably, but you know they're out there.
Perhaps Reisner and Weiderpass wanted to put feelers out to see who might be receptive to their message. Perhaps they proposed a strategic move to him that by coming out in support of marriage equality he would, yes, damage his chances with the base, but possibly survive a primary and then distinguish himself from the rest of the Repub field and make himself much more palatable to a general electorate that overwhelmingly supports marriage equality. Perhaps they recognized him as a maverick who isn't afraid to buck the establishment of his party. I have no idea what their strategy was going into this meeting, but I maintain that until we know that they've made a donation to Cruz, endorsed him or solicited funds on his behalf, it's irresponsible to destroy their reputations and target their businesses. IF it turns out they have donated to him, solicited funds on his behalf or offered any kind of promises/endorsements, then, yes, I fully support the boycott. Big "if".
ETA:
Oh, and, yes, of course I know how this all connects to AIPAC & co. I'm not naive about that, but it is still possible that Reisner & Weiderpass saw their mutual h@rdon for Israel as an entry point to - at a minimum - open a real dialogue with Cruz on LGBT equality.
""republicans are against everything that BCEFA stands for and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of AIDS victims" whoa where do you get that from? "
Ummm, you clearly weren't around during the Reagan years.
I actually see what you're saying HorseTears, and at first I agreed with it somewhat. At first, I thought, well it was only a conversation. What's wrong with open dialogue. But then you read about what they talked about and it sort of muddies it up a bit. Then you remember Cruz's stand on all things LGBTQ (not just marriage) and it reminds you of why people may have a toxic reaction.
In light of Ted Cruz doubling down on his efforts to suppress marriage equality AFTER THEY MET AND HAD THEIR CHAT (http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/ted_cruz_introduces_two_bills_to_kill_same_sex_marriage), this has the appearance putting aside interests of the mainstream LGBTQ community (at least the members that can afford to party it up in Fire Island and stay at their hotels) for other issues that they care about and may affect them more personally, such as business reasons. That's what people are reacting to.
Maybe one day inviting Ted Cruz over for a talk may be more fruitful than this one ended up being (as they didn't even talk about gay rights), but you can't say you're surprised when people react strongly and roll their eyes when defenders try to come up with alternate reasons that the hoteliers didn't even give as to why they thought this talk would be a good idea on the gay rights front when he equates gay rights activists as jihadists who are waging a war against Christianity. http://www.mediaite.com/online/does-ted-cruz-really-think-he-can-talk-about-a-gay-jihad-and-still-be-president/
This just seems like a case of money making strange bedfellows and people putting their interests in their bank accounts over anything and everyone else. It's not like we hadn't had a huge generational shift towards corporatist culture taking over principles (The current Roberts Supreme Court is already being talked about historically as the not a Conservative or Liberal Court but a Corporatist Court).
Say what you will about Obama and Clinton's stances on marriage equality before it was ok for them to come out with their true feelings about it because you can't really convince me or most people who have been paying attention that they are/were on Cruz's level of LGBT animus.
I personally think his stand on issues affecting people of color, poverty, education, science research and development, immigrants, and health coverage all negatively impacts members of the LGBTQ community beyond marriage, and I hate that this controversy is only focusing on Cruz's stand on marriage equality since there are many other things that he stands for that harm the LGBTQ community as well.
Again, maybe the hoteliers were well-meaning, and only wanted to talk about Israel, but I don't think you can blame people for reacting this negatively to them even considering a conversation, as misguided as you think it is. It's not as if there is a lack of candidates who support Israel that they could have had a conversation with who don't have his problematic history of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. Plus, if they already know Cruz aligns himself with them on foreign policy and Israel, then wouldn't it be better to have a discussion with candidates who aren't as on board? They certainly weren't going to try to talk to him about LGBTQ issues because they admitted they already knew where he stood on it and decided to not even talk about it.
Scotty, thanks for the thoughtful response. I still think the reaction was overboard considering what we know and what we don't. But, on the other hand, from a business perspective this was a dumb move - hoteliers in the biggest city in the country with ties to the LGBT community associating with Cruz in any way (no matter how noble the intention) was always going to make for bad PR.
Whenever I read such discussions I end up thinking- wouldn't it be easier just to partition the country in half and pop the republicans on one side (preferably the earthquake-y side) where they can hate each other to their hearts' content? People who can leave each other alone get the other side.
Some Republican politicians say they're against marriage equality to appease their base when they either don't really care about the issue or actually feel that everyone should get to marry. Obama and Hilary did it, I imagine there are some Repubs in that boat right now. A minority, probably, but you know they're out there.
"I just wanted to see Mark Mackillop strip. Guess, I won't be seeing that now."
If you want to see Mark MacKillop strip, you should buy his book: Room XIV, a series of selfies, set in various hotel rooms, shot in 14 different European hotel rooms during the recent international tour of West Side Story, in which he played Riff. The photographs give an intimate perspective into the life of an artist on tour. A portion of the proceeds goes to BC/EFA: