I think it would have been way more interesting to have the event at the church and see what Glass would have done. The easy thing to do is find an alternate venue. The difficult thing is to stand in the venue and tell your host they have it all wrong. I'd like to believe Christ would have done that.

Steve Earle did it.

So same-sex marriage in Oregon is good a thing? I did not know this.

Political correctness and PDX's left wing mob yet again demonstrate their deep understading of the concept of freedom of speach.

Thanks Jack! It's interesting that the Oregonian piece doesn't mention the calls and inquiries last week OPB received last week while Amy at The Portland Mercury was digging into all of this, and who then ran a piece this week in their paper. But then again, it is The Oregonian...I'm just glad to see the venue was changed to one much more accessible, and palpable, for everyone.

I've left this comment a couple other places, but I'd love to see the idea take hold... Sadly, other than a few negative blog posts, it's not likely that OPB management will see any problem with what they've done. I have an idea however: everyone who normally is out there supporting OPB, next year when it's time to renew, give them less money. Say, $25 less so if you normally give $100, give $75. If you normally give $50, halve that. Send them a note explaining why, and then give the other $25 to your favorite gay rights organization. Sadly, they've shown they don't care about bloggers, but maybe if they see a financial impact, it'll matter.

"outspoken leftist activists"? i wish the 'liberal media' was a little more liberal.

and as for the 'freedom of speach' (sic) issue, 1. this right is applicable to public property not private property such as churches and 2. the issue here is that by choosing the church as a venue, there is a tacit approval of the church's conduct and views on social issues such as homosexuality.

and i think taking a stand against an organization that advocates discrimination based on sexual orientation is kind of a good thing.

the issue here is that by choosing the church as a venue, there is a tacit approval of the church's conduct and views on social issues such as homosexuality.

So changing the venue to a publicly owned facility is tacit approval of the City Council's conduct and views?

while not wanting to belabor this red herring, clarification, i guess, is necessary...

"the issue here is that by choosing the church as a venue, there is a tacit approval [By Mr. Glass] of the church's conduct and views on social issues such as homosexuality."

the freedom of speech is that of the church and its members to espouse a position on social issues.

by changing the venue to a publicly owned facility Mr. Glass is exposing himself to possible censorship by the government based on the content of his speech. he is not tacitly approving or condoning the various conduct and views of the City Council members.

he could, however, cancel his appearance in portland if the city council passed an ordinance he didn't approve of. that would be his prerogative and an exercise of his free speech.

Wow. This whole thing seems way overblown to me.

It's a venue, owned by people whose politics are objectionable to some. It was being rented by a semi-public entity that is (theoretically) politically neutral, to host a nonpolitical event. However, the event has lots of vocal fans who object to the venue on political grounds - they don't want their ticket money to go to the venue's owners - so the promoter changed the venue to suit the ticket-buying fans.

The event organizer followed their market, and the venue lost business because of its owner's reputation. Sounds like a successful application of free-market principles at work to me. (And like any of the various Disney boycotts writ small.)

Why is this controversial at all?

Why is this controversial at all?

The point is not the particular controversy, but the general power of bloggers to get out in front of an issue and affect change.

And some see the point as yet another object lesson of many in Portland as to who exactly it is that's really and truly intolerant of other ideas.

Zeb gets it.

So, it's bad to be intolerant of bigotry? I don't get it.

*****And some see the point as yet another object lesson of many in Portland as to who exactly it is that's really and truly intolerant of other ideas.****

Yes I am intolerant of other ideas. I am intolerant of the Klu Klux Klans ideas. I am intolerant of the Neo Nazi's ideas. I am intolerant of the ideas of Communist Dictators.

If my method of expressing my "intolerance" consists of making sure my money doesn't go to support any of those ideas what is wrong with that. If Al Queda opened up a Portland venue and to raise money to pay for it started putting on concerts would you go.

No one is trying to tell New Hope Church they can't believe what they want to belive. Or to stop them from expressing it. Only that I am not giving them money to do so.

Greg C

Pssst, guys... Lefties stopped talking about "tolerance" sometime in the 80s. The word we're using now is "celebrate". Y'know, those hippie rainbow bumper stickers that say "celebrate diversity", right?

To tolerate diversity is to say, "it's icky, but I won't complain out loud." To celebrate diversity is to say, "Every person has value, even if they're really different than me. Let's talk!"