Gay rights advocates picket Boulder cineplex
By Amy Bounds, Daily Camera
Published November 30, 2008 at 5:57 p.m.
BOULDER — Anthony Hernandez started boycotting Cinemark movie theaters in 2006, when a manager asked him and an ex-boyfriend to leave a movie because other patrons didn’t like that the couple was holding hands.
So it was an easy decision to join about 50 other gay rights advocates this afternoon outside Century Boulder Theatre to protest the nearly $10,000 donation that Cinemark-Century owner Alan Stock made in support of the recently passed California proposition that prohibits same-sex marriage.
“I was furious,” said Hernandez, who works in Boulder and lives in Windsor. “When you’re representing such a large company, it’s inappropriate to make a statement that offends so many of your customers. We deserve a little more respect.”
The protest on Boulder’s Twenty Ninth Street mall coincided with Cinemark’s national opening weekend for “Milk” — a film based on the true story of Harvey Milk, one of the nation’s first openly gay elected officials.
“It seems especially wrong for the CEO to take money from a movie about Harvey Milk,” said Laurie Moy, who attended the protest with her husband in support of their daughter, who’s gay.
“Milk” isn’t yet showing in Boulder, but the Century Boulder Theatre plans to debut the Sean Penn film in December, according to theater officials.
After media outlets began reporting that Cinemark’s chief executive gave $9,999 to the “Yes on 8” campaign in California, a movement to protest Cinemark developed. Gay-rights advocates launched the Web site Nomilkforcinemark.com, and they’ve started a Facebook.com group that counts more than 18,700 members.
In responding to the issue, a Cinemark spokesman said that the company doesn’t take a position on political issues that don’t directly affect the business and doesn’t restrict its employees personal political positions.
For more on this story, go to Daily Camera.com
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's rant on what's next for the Broncos.
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
November 30, 2008
7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
ReallyJustCurious writes:
Is Alan Stock the owner or the CEO? If he is the owner then it does seem hypocritical to show a movie that goes against those $9,999.00 values. Boycotting Cinemark may not have much of an effect on him if he is a CEO, but it would if he were an/the owner. I believe in gay rights, and look forward to the movie, though possibly not at Cinemark!
November 30, 2008
8 p.m.
Suggest removal
olsonmt writes:
Simple solution... go to another movie theater. The whole principle of liberalism, free speech, etc. is that people are free to say what they believe. So, unless you want to make everyone think exactly the same then there are always going to be people that offend you. I don't agree with either side in this particular issue. And I don't agree with Cinemark re: the incident in 2006. I just can't stand the irony when one group says they are sticking up for their rights while, at the same time, they are trying to stiffle someone else's.
December 1, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
I had this posted in another place, but it applies to this situation too:
Remember, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE!!!
That goes for BUSINESS as well as PERSONAL behavior!
The saying " just don't do it in the streets and scare the horses " applied to WHAT kind of behavior???
It didn't matter what the genders involved, that is why certain laws were agreed upon by the majority of the people at that time.
You want equality? start by EARNING the RESPECT of the majority!
Boycott a PRIVATE business, that is your right. March and make a statement, that is your right. But don't force your beliefs and behavior on people by legislative / progressive judges by FIAT.
That is the base reason Prop 8 got the results it did.
Read the Chuck Norris column to find out what the GLBT reaction was...
Remember, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE!!!
That goes for BUSINESS as well as PERSONAL behavior!
The saying " just don't do it in the streets and scare the horses " applied to WHAT kind of behavior???
It didn't matter what the genders involved, that is why certain laws were agreed upon by the majority of the people at that time.
You want equality? start by EARNING the RESPECT of the majority!
Boycott a PRIVATE business, that is your right. March and make a statement, that is your right. But don't force your beliefs and behavior on people by legislative / progressive judges by FIAT.
That is the base reason Prop 8 got the results it did.
Read the Chuck Norris column to find out what the GLBT reaction was...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.ph...
I think a few more words from the past apply as well
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030331.html
But breaking the law is INDEFENSIBLE...
December 1, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Hmm, the RMN may have a problem. I didn't double post...
December 1, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Davek80501 writes:
Did they protest at the back door? ;-)
December 1, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Dave, that comment has so many implications..>8->....
December 1, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
History writes:
Punisher - "You want equality? start by EARNING the RESPECT of the majority!" I respectfully disagree, that is not how our democratic republic functions - minority groups, or anyone for that matter are entitled to all rights. That is the point of the bill of rights - it is to ensure those protections to all citizens, regardless of whether or not those citizens have "earned" the respect of the majority. There are plenty of people in our country who I do not respect, however that does not give me the authority to deny them equalty
December 1, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
History writes:
Mr Crush - lots of "immoral" behavior is legal and protected. In the curch I was raised in it is immoral to eat meat on friday during a certain time of the year, yet it is not illegal. I believe that anyone who joins the KKK to be a deviant, but eventhough I find that person to be morally offensive I defend his or her right. Why? Because we should not legislate morality
December 1, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
titancain writes: "The rightwing christians are always boycotting establishments who treat gay people with respect."
Like where?
December 1, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
History, I disagree with part of your statement. But you still have the right to SPEAK it. Now if you FORCE me to agree with you, you have crossed that invisible line...
Do you understand that simple difference? Do you understand the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE?
Leave personalities out of the discussion. It doesn't help the debate.
You are correct in that the government should not legislate MORALITY. However, it does have the obligation to keep itself in existence.
The base idea behind government was to keep one humanoid from killing another humanoid with a rock. Everything else was added on later...
December 1, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
same tired old arguments from the folks who discriminate...whether it be against color, gender or sexual orientation.
once again for the cheap seats...the majority does not have the right to deny the minority equal rights under the law...which is why courts all over the country are stamping these bigoted laws as unconstitutional.
furthermore, your "feelings" about what is "normal" or "disgusting" are in no way justification for bigotry.
for that matter...is there ever?
December 1, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
Morality shouldn't be legislated in either direction. We all have the right to protest and put our point of view out there for others to learn from. That is not the same thing as a government agency ordering a business to allow a behavior on the premises that the owner feels uncomfortable with. Yes, the owner is a jerk. And yes, we should call him on it. But what is all this talk of the "law" and "equality"?
I'm not required by law to be nice to any one, or tolerant of any one in my place of business, though it would be best for my business for me to do so.
Punnisher has it right. Running a business that supports a hetero-only agenda may be a nasty thing to do, but it isn't and shouldn't be illegal.
December 1, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
olsonmt writes:
Jay, what rights are being violated here? At Cinemark? Prop 8? Our sensibilities may be violated, but are anyone's rights? Being offended is not the same as being oppressed.
December 1, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Coffee_Mug writes:
How about this Crush, because of your hatred, you don't DESERVE rights either.
December 1, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
olsonmt writes:
Re: Prop 8, gay couples have all of the key legal rights available to them as hetero married couples. There are domestic partership aggrements, powers of attorney, wills, adoption procedures etc. that can address each of the concerns I've heard from the GBLT community. I think gay marriage is a matter of principle for proponants not a matter of necessity. It certainly is not a constitutional right. I personally would be fine with gay marriage. I just can't stand the ignorant arguements for it that most people make.
December 1, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
dreiben writes:
It's good to see that there are still some decent people in the People's Republic of Boulder. I wish I could give that theatre some business without having to go there. It sure wouldn't be to see the movie "Milk"!
December 1, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
You have a right to protest all you want. You have no right to be taken seriously.
December 1, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
Wow,
Is the owner a jerk because he thinks differently than you do? Is he a jerk because he legally gave money to support his way of thinking? His right to express his opinion on this matter is well documented. The right for people to express their disagreement with him is also well documented and protected.
I see this a lot on these boards. People are labled jerks or much worse for disagreeing with one poster or another.
Titancain, can you provide an example of your statement that "The rightwing christians are always boycotting establishments who treat gay people with respect."? Using a word like always in a statement like that tends to invalidate your point.
December 2, 2008
5:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
GK writes:
McCrush, you are sick and I pray for you.