Oak Park gays pressured a popular cafe to cancel a book talk by a born-again-straight reverend who wants to straighten them out. Wednesday Journal has a boatload of comments, here excerpted and annotated.

Reading them, I am reminded of the Second Vatican Council, where a document supporting religious liberty was opposed by people who said error has no rights. Which side of this issue reminds you of that (losing) argument?

Posted: Saturday, August 15, 2009

Article comment by: Bruce Broerman

If the event had been promoted as supposedly intended, i.e. to debunk Cornelius Williams and his book, . . . there would have been no protest . . . from the LGBTQ community. . . . Free speech and open debate should assume rational viewpoints based on facts, where there are legitimate grounds for differing views. [Huh? Debate opens with disagreement. It’s the nature of it.]

Religious conviction is inherently irrational [non-rational, but opposed to reason? Let’s debate that] and oblivious to scientific facts and inquiry. [So much for the religiously convinced.] So why would anyone grant such an indiviudal a forum for promoting a book that espouses irrationality and perpetuates the damage that such views continue to inflict? [So people who know better can argue with him, for starters?]

Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009

Article comment by: Greg Raub

I applaud [cafe proprietor] Laura for [cancelling] this event [which] was promoted as a panel discussion led by [book author Cornelius W.]. . . . my concern — beyond being offended by how Mr. Williams characterizes his life as a homosexual as one filled with “rape, anger, bitternes, mental breakdowns, alcohol, suicidal tendencies and a serious sex addiction,” were that this would be a one-sided presentation of inaccurate and hate-filled opinions. [To be argued against in open forum]

Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 Article comment by: Cheryl Haugh

. . . . This article . . . characterized the meeting [at Buzz C] held Monday night as a protest and attack [on] The Buzz and Laura Maychuk. That was not the agenda of attendees nor what transpired. Laura told the group that she canceled because the last email she received, accused her of supporting William’s reparative ministry. She was distrought that anyone would think that and that’s why Williams was cancelled. [which the article made clear]

As to preventing free speech or stamping out the event, this was not the position of either the folks gathered or the subsequent tone of the meeting. In fact, we went there to honor Laura’s decision [not pressured at all? really?] and explain the reaction she experience. I, personally, was surprised (albeit happy) to get Laura’s email canceling the program.

My personal explanation for feeling impassioned [in opposition to] the invitation extended Williams, was that it was offensive to bring that kind of misinformed, self righteous, book promoting into a community priding itself on exceptance of the GLBT community. [Italics added] It was naive to think this would promote dialog. It would be one side against another. Deadlock. Confrontation. [There would have been an argument, a debate, yes. There should be no discussion without previous agreement?]

1st amendment rights are for the people, yes, but in public venues. [such as a cafe where discussions are held and advertised regularly — Buzz is not open to the public?] We don’t allow offensive, hateful or objectionable behavior displayed in our homes, small businesses or schools. [No, but who decides?] In each case people have a right to choose. [As by not attending]  Nor is there a responsibilty to the 1st amendment in those cases. [This is hardly a first-amendment case legally speaking, but is it how we want to proceed in Oak Park?]

Where the intent of this program was innocent, invisioning a lively debate consistance with The Buzz’s commitment to open forum, it was clear the vision did not consider how the GLBT community would feel. [Buzz Cafe didn’t check with GLBT. It’s something you have to do when you have an open forum?] When Nazi’s wanted to march in Skokie, they were given a permit to do so on the streets. Jewish synagog’s were not criticized for nor expected to invite them in for a spirited discussion of their differences. [Buzz Cafe is owned and operated by and for GLBT’s? Nope.]

I think the dialog we all had with Laura that night was informative and an opportunity to better know each other. THAT was more constructive and meaningful than a so called panel discussion. By the way, there were as many self identified “straight” supports as gays in attendance. [In other words, everyone agreed you can’t change your ways from gay to straight, and all were comfortable with that.]

Too bad Mr. [Dennis] Murphy [Poor Phil’s restaurant owner who objected to the pressure on the Buzz Cafe] did not bring his passion to The Buzz that night to experience, first hand, what actually took place! [Well now he knows, thanks to this account.]

Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009

Article comment by: Steve Maxey

The quote from Mr. Williams . . . “I don’t buy the facts. What I agree with and relate to is the scripture,” makes it clear why this reading should never have been scheduled. Once someone takes the position that the facts don’t matter, there is no legitimate discussion or debate to be had. [I don’t buy this argument, but I defend your right to make it. I do have a question worth arguing, however: what makes one discussion legitimate and another illegitimate?]

Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 Article comment by: David Steven Rappoport

The Buzz Cafe was profoundly insensitive, and deserves the response they got. No one said Cornelius Williams didn’t have a right to free speech, no matter how repugnant his views are. [No one came right out and said it, he’s right about that.] But the community also has a right to be outraged that a local business chose to give this hateful nonsense credibility by sponsoring a public foruum for it. [Go ahead, but don’t give me this right to free speech stuff. You pressured Buzz and got the guy cancelled. People who would like to hear from him can go hang.  You’ve stake out Buzz as your territory.  Big sign out front now: Gays run it, like Blackstone Rangers in Woodlawn years ago.]

Further, I think a public has every right to draw a line between appropriate public discourse and public discussion which has as its intent the victimization of minority groups. [Victimization? Really?]

There is no scientific basis for anything Reverend Williams has to say, nor any credible public policy interest inherent in it. [Public policy? Look, a trustee was there, but it wasn’t a village board meeting, for crying out loud.]

The American Psychological Association stated clearly that ex-gay therapy is ineffective this past week after a multi-year study. People like Reverend Williams cite discredited or distorted research to support their contention that gay and lesbian can and should go through therapy to change their sexual orientation. [Which is what a discussion would have spelled out.]

Worse, their underlying assumption, that there is something intrinsically disordered about gays and lesbians, contributes to the continuing oppression of gays and lesbians, such as the murderous attack on gay teenagers in Israel within the last two weeks. [Rev. W. is potentially accessory to murder? Please.]

The heterosexuals proclaiming free speech rights in their comments here ought to consider how they’d feel if someone held public forums questioning their right to be who they are. I am quite sure they wouldn’t be quite so sanguine about it. [Their right? How get from voluntary therapy to infringement of rights?]

Posted: Friday, August 14, 2009 Article comment by: donna 

I think this is wrong how the owners of Buzz Cafe are being treated. It was just a discussion and debate. I thought Oak Park was all about open-minded tolerance. [Me too.]

Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009 Article comment by: howard cook

We should become increasingly concerned about a group that protests someone’s right to free speech or an opinion while demanding open-mindedness and tolerance, whether it be something they agree with or not. What happened to this community? [My question exactly.]

I couldn’t think of a better example of something more unamerican and hypocritical. And to take it to the level of threatening a local business with protest – a place that has brought more than food and chairs but a place to share and be neighbors. It’s a detriment to Oak Park’s meaning of community for being so close minded and unaccepting. . . . [A body blow, in my view.]

Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009 Article comment by: Alan Amato

Healthy debate is the hallmark of our democracy. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not. It is meant to cause harm. Mr. Williams with his hateful and harmful views (which have been widely condemned by professionals) does not offer a discussion but a condemnation of a segment of America. That is not a “conversation”…that is an attack. That is not democracy. [How does he know W. hates gays? How do we know his views are harmful without hearing him out? Some agree on this, and the rest are to follow suit? What’s this condemnation anyhow? Really, it’s an opinion with which Amato disagrees. For him the issue is unspeakable, and that’s the heart of his argument.]

Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009

Article comment by: Freespirit

Mention to any gay person that their “choice” to be that way can be challenged, and they RUN! They don’t welcome change, unless it’s joining their “cause” and helping to change laws that DON’T benefit their lifestyle choices. Afraid they are!!

There was no real need to cancel Mr. Williams’ appearance at the Buzz, except for maybe Laura Maychruk was afraid that business would go down if she didn’t??

Who cares, Laura, if p[eo]pl[e] think the Buzz shares the author’s views?? What, are ALL your customers gay? Might they picket your store if you didn’t share their views? Possibly sue you for something?

Oh, maybe they would talk about you in the Wednesday Journal saying how you’re “espousing bigotry & hate” simply because of your opinion! Sad, Sad indeed Laura that in this situation you had no backbone.

Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009

Article comment by: Larry Judson

Wow! Free speech only for those that have the same opinions and values as yourselves? What a joke. For a group that demands open mindedness from others, you sure are closing your minds off in this situation. And attacking a coffee shop owner for hosting an author? What are you afraid of?

Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2009

Article comment by: Jim Coughlin

The “american” thing for Dennis Murphy to do is to offer an invitation to Mr. Williams to speak at Poor Phil’s. [Take that, Murphy!]

Posted: Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Article comment by: Alan

One step backward for free speech.