re: #33 calochortus

I’ll disagree with this part:

As long as there are people who will respond violently to those actions there is a danger. There shouldn’t be a danger, but there is.

And instead of responding to the restaurants with a non-violent boycott or passing out fliers to potential customers, what happened? We gave groups like NOM the high ground by having governors declare openly that they would do everything they could to block these restaurants while media personalities clutched their pearls at what it could mean if CFA set up shop in LGBT-friendly towns.