Discussion: Activists Lash Out At Gay Hoteliers Who Hosted Ted Cruz

Discussion for article #235656

This article doesn’t reflect how glib they were about this whole thing. One of them said that the marriage issue didn’t matter because same sex marriage is here and was a non-issue. Oh, really? Tell that to the couples in dozens of states where they can’t get married and their marriage from another state (in direct violation of Article IV of the Constitution) isn’t recognize. It must be nice to sit on their perch in NYC (a place that has gay marriage) and declare the fight over.

What these two hoteliers don’t realize is that it’s not just gay marriage here.  Cruz also supports RFRA laws – laws that would allow businesses to discriminate against these two hoteliers simply because of who they are.

Finally, this was NOT a “converstation.” It was a fundraiser. These guys raised money for Ted Cruz. I’m all for having a dialogue where people who disagree sit down and talk. But shouldn’t that conversation happen in public instead of behind closed doors where people are being asked for money? Other self-loathing gays (Ken Mehlman, Roy Cohn, Ernst Roehm, to name a few) have put their own quest for money or access to power and aligned themselves with people who would do them real harm. That’s what happened here.

Let the boycott begin.


It’s all about lower taxes for them. In their world acceptance isn’t really an issue…that shit is for the little people.


Response to the statements issued after the fact by Weiderpass and Reisner:


Oh for the love of…don’t boycott them. Don’t draw attention to them. Just ignore them. That’s a lot easier and a lot more likely to hurt them than all of this idiocy.


Similarly, Weiderpass said in a separate statement: “I worked tirelessly for the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ as a member of the board of directors for the Service members Legal Defense Network and needed to reach across the aisle to make that happen. The fact that Senator Cruz accepted the invitation to my home was a step in the right direction toward him having a better understanding of who I am and what I believe in.”

He accepted the invitation because you were giving him money and because he can now say, “I have gay friends, they even raised money for my campaign.” Helping to elect a regressive bag of anger and hate is a kick in the teeth to the gay community that doesn’t have the resources to buy their way out of being subjected to the violence, abuse, and ridicule so very many LGBTs still face. These guys get to live in the safety and security of liberal Manhattan while some gay kid growing up in rural, uber conservative MS is harassed and abused by people who think Ted Cruz is quite possibly the second coming. These people are the epitome of selfish.

to have a candidate conversation with Senator Ted Cruz

Are there no proofreaders? Are there no copy editors? Bah! Humbug!


Noticed he never detailed the other such issues he supposedly disagrees with Mr. Cruz. Most Gay Republicans are white males who will disagree with their party only on the issues that directly affect them.

All the rest of the peasant can go f**k themselves.


Oh, and Hillary should give the money back they raised for her. If she doesn’t then we’ll know that her talk about equality is just that. Let us remember that it was her husband who put Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA into place. The Clintons aren’t liberal – they just like to play that on TV. If Hillary truly care about equality then she should distance herself from these two and repudiate them.

1 Like

DOMA was passed with a veto-proof majority. DADT was the best possible compromise, at the time, with a Congress prepared to pass an airtight, outright ban on gays serving.


DADT was the best possible compromise, at the time, with a Congress prepared to pass an airtight, outright ban on gays serving.

Exactly. What Clinton did at that time was major progress. It looks bad now but people dont realize what a monumental step it was at that time.


And what did Ted do right after the confab? Went back to DC and filed bills that would 1: Prohibit the Federal Courts from acting on the marriage equality issue and 2: Adopt a “One Man One Woman” definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment. Congrats, Weiderpass and Reisner, your open dialogue with Cruz was so successful.


Wildly off-topic and just plain ridiculous.


Well, he’s a candidate, and they talked at some point, so it’s possible that’s what the writer meant. :wink:

And another thing… Did Hillary know, weeks ago, that after hosting a fundraiser for her that Weiderpass and Reisner would, at a later date, hold a fundraiser for Cruz? Did the people who donated?


You need to brush up on the history of DADT and DOMA. You also need to grasp the concept of the veto-proof majority.

DADT was, in fact, considerably more liberal than the existing policy on gays in the military, who were hunted down by the intelligence services and discharged as security risks. Clinton campaigned on allowing all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation. After his election, Congress quickly moved to make the existing policy on gays, which had been implemented by DOD directives, into federal law to prevent Clinton from allowing gays to serve openly by executive order. DADT was not law, but a policy, implemented by DOD directive, that prohibited military commanders from actively investigating or searching for gays (don’t ask) as long as there was no overt indication of intent to engage in homosexual acts (don’t tell).

For DOMA, this act passed by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate.


DOMA was signed by a man who couldn’t keep it in his pants in the Oval Office in a midnight ceremony on a Friday night (hoping no one would notice). He said at the time he felt he needed to defend traditional marriage. He could have vetoed it. And then Congress could have overridden the veto. But he didn’t. He gladly signed it.

As for DADT, you can try to rewrite history if you want to, but it won’t work. Clinton eagerly embraced this policy (and DOMA). He could have used his executive authority to allow gays to serve openly – just like Truman did with African Americans in the military. Instead, he hemmed and hawed and allowed Congress to pass this. Then he signed it. He could have vetoed it, but he didn’t.

Not at all. These two men said they raised money for Hillary. It was quoted in this article. For decades, the Clintons have paid lip service to the LGBT community while endorsing and putting laws into place which harm the LGBT community. If she truly does care about equality, it’s time for her to put up or shut up. Otherwise, she is associating herself with individuals who do not care about equality.

If he had used his “executive authority,” Congress would have overridden the action and instituted a much tougher ban.