Comments on: Church’s rental of E Street Cinema prompts boycott talk

By: Fausto Fernandez

Fausto Fernandez — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:07:03 +0000

Rick Rosendall is completely right. Folks, let’s stop being fascist about this.

By: libhomo

libhomo — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:16:47 +0000

Don’t take Rosendall so seriously. He has a habit of berating and demeaning lgbt activists only to take credit for their work when they’ve won. Criticism from Rosendall is a sure sign that you are doing exactly what you should be doing.

By: libhomo

libhomo — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:56:11 +0000

Lolo: You are absolutely correct. A hate group is a hate group. Religion is irrelevant to the issue.

By: libhomo

libhomo — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:54:51 +0000

If I still lived in DC, I would boycott E Street Cinema for sure. It is reprehensible for businesses to do business with homophobic hate groups, religious or otherwise.

By: Peter the Saint

Peter the Saint — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 18:24:19 +0000

I agree with you, but, the interesting thing here is: what if we were NOT winning? What if we were LOSING all those battles? Somehow I think that our human nature would then be to say F&*k ‘em, and pull out all the stops and protest and boycott etc. I think it’s good to at least consider this because right now in VA, what if the Gov DOES win at repealing LGBT rights? What if they DO get colleges to delete sexual orientation etc from hiring and admissions? What are people gonna do about it?

Won’t passion be a necessary component to get anything done?

By: EdA

EdA — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:10:42 +0000

Of course people are free to patronize or not patronize any establishment of their choice. But it IS the case that what we want for ourselves, we should not deny to others.

However, there is no reason why the E Street Cinema, not to be confused with the Christianist C Street House, cannot run a special film series on Sundays at, say, 11 a.m. My suggestions for initial screenings include Elmer Gantry, Inherit the Wind, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, A Patch of Blue, Cage aux Folles, Jesus Camp, Religulous, Unforgiven …

By: bigolpoofter

bigolpoofter — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:04:08 +0000

Please note that the D.C. offices of FOTF, Wordlnet News Daily, and other dominionist groups are a short walk from the theater. This could be a great venue fo the Final Showdown.

By: Lolo

Lolo — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:51:43 +0000

Mr. Rosendall,

You are incorrect that E Street is merely obeying the law. It is true that Title II of the Civil Rights Act prevents religious discrimination in places of public accommodation (such as E Street). But denying Bishop Jackson the space would not constitute discrimination on the basis of religion; it would be discrimination based on his political activity. Such political viewpoint discrimination would be unconstitutional were it the government doing the discriminating, but E Street is a private business. And there is no provision of the Civil Rights Act that applies political speech restrictions to private businesses, including places of public accommodation. Because of this, the law simply does not require that E Street rent this space to Bishop Jackson. That they nevertheless do so means they either haven’t consulted their lawyer or they know denying Bishop Jackson the space wouldn’t be a problem but they choose to do so anyway. Either way, they deserve this boycott.

By: Rick Rosendall

Rick Rosendall — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:08:09 +0000

Tim, if you refuse to pay attention you are harming our cause. Your resolute refusal to care whether the D.C. Human Rights Act does in fact forbid E Street from discriminating against Bishop Jackson displays ignorance and now, rather clearly, recklessness. Pardon me for not being more diplomatic, but you are simply wrong here, and I am getting sick of people who refuse to do their homework before launching proposed actions and then using their passion to justify it. It is a popular but misguided notion that First Amendment and Human Rights Act protections do not extend to offensive speech. They darn well do. Not knowing what you are talking about is bad enough; not caring is worse. Call me arrogant all you like, but you are wrong and counterproductive on this. Once again, folks: our community is defeating Bishop Jackson and we DON’T have to demand illegal discrimination against him in order to win. Please decide that you don’t want to win the wrong way. Jackson has lost with the D.C. Council, the Mayor, the Board of Elections and Ethics, the Superior Court, the Court of Appeals, U.S. District Court, and even the Chief Justice of the United States. But go ahead and dismiss me, because what do I know? Keep insisting that your passion justifies everything and anything, even if it plays into Jackson’s hands by letting him play the victim. Sure.

By: Peter the Saint

Peter the Saint — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:11:33 +0000

How do you define “exciting”?