Leave a Comment Sagesse
Prop 8: Peter Lassen’s new health food store for hate
November 14, 2011
By Adam Bink
Late last week, my colleague Howie Klein over at Down With Tyranny posted on Peter Lassen and Lassen’s Natural Foods taking over his health food mart in Los Angeles. Lassen isn’t just anyone — he was one of the lead donors to Prop 8. Howie explains:
My hill isn’t zoned for stores but I can hike down to Hillhurst in Los Feliz Village to do some shopping at the local healthfood store if I want to. I’ve been shopping at Nature Mart since I moved to L.A. two decades ago. Last month the owner sold it but there was a big hush-hush mystery about who bought it. I went over there yesterday, the first day of the new operation, to check it out. The Nature Mart signs are all still up and the store looks pretty much the same. But then I saw the bags– Lassen’s Natural Foods. Oh, God, no!
I recognized the name immediately. Lassen’s is owned by a vicious hate-monger and Mormon militant, Peter Lassen, who helped finance the Mormon attack on Prop 8 here in California. Rural, backward Lassen County, the reddest county in California, is named for his great grandfather, also Peter Lassen. The county voted 71.3 % for Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Lassen’s store in Ventura alone contributed $27,500 to the anti-gay jihad. His store in Camarillo ponied up another $3,000 and his store in Simi Valley gave more. In the end, Lassen gave tens of thousands of dollars towards institutionalizing bigotry and hatred in our communities. The Los Feliz/Silverlake area is one of the most gay-friendly parts of Los Angeles. What a stupid decision for him to buy a store in an area where everyone is going to hear about what he did and look for alternative places to shop!
In fact, yesterday I met my new neighbors– a screen writer and a viola player. They just bought the house across the street. I have to remember to warn them. And Cynthia will be so excited. She thinks the store is dirty and when I get her about the bigotry part, I bet she’ll really get on her husband to stop buying vitamins there. Thing is, if you walk in and buy some organic Swiss chard, you’re helping to finance hatred and bigotry against our neighbors. There’s no place for people like Peter Lassen around here. He should go back to Lassen County.
And this isn’t the problem:
Lassen’s niece, who personally donated anti-gay money herself and manages the store in Camarillo (owned by her father, John Lassen), defended the idea that the stores gave money to defeat Prop 8. “We have a lot a gay and lesbian customers. We have nothing against them. To us, it is a moral issue, not a civil issue… Sadly, people feel like they have to blame somebody. It’s not just Mormons who voted for this. It was passed by a majority of Californians. We love our gay and lesbian customers. If they don’t want to shop at our store, then that’s their choice. I can respect that, but they should respect my family’s beliefs, too. It’s pretty sad how mean people can be.”
So if you live in the area, spread the word. The dollars you spend at Lassen’s go to support hate.
And this new boycott is brewing. More here.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
45 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Alan_Eckert | November 14, 2011 at 10:05 am
∞
2.
Kilgore Trout | November 14, 2011 at 10:27 am
If it is a moral issue based in her peculiar hateful religion and not a civil issue, then why the need to amend our state constitution, which is a civil document? Your hate belongs in your church, not in our government.
3.
Michael in SF | November 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
That comment from the niece, "To us, it is a moral issue, not a civil issue," that just ticks me off so much. Stealing is a moral issue. Lying is a moral issue. I fail to understand how these people maintain that two people in love getting married and starting a family is somehow immoral. That's a lame copout.
"It’s pretty sad how mean people can be." Truer words were never spoken.
4.
Straght4Equality | November 14, 2011 at 11:05 am
So I guess she believes that it is more moral for two unmarried people to live together than for them to get married, at least if they are gay.
5.
AuntieAdrian | November 14, 2011 at 11:22 am
Just an observation – seems to me that whenever there is anything "hush,hush" about a business transaction, whether a single purchase or the whole business, something either shady, or potentially detrimental to some portion of the community is going on.
6.
Kilgore Trout | November 14, 2011 at 11:29 am
She’s likely a believer, not a thinker. That much can fairly be deduced from her statements. Thinking is hard work. In my experience such people find it too difficult to do much actual thinking of their own and much prefer to have others do their thinking for them.
7.
Martin Pal | November 14, 2011 at 11:39 am
Yes. We often see this sentiment from those opposed to glbt people getting married: “We have nothing against them. To us, it is a moral issue, not a civil issue." Well, I take that as meaning you don't think we are moral, which is highly offensive and it DOES mean you have something against us. No one wants to think of themselves as being hateful so they try to justify themselves by compartmentalizing their ideas so they feel better about it. And the first part of that seemingly innocuous beginning is the telling part–we have nothing against "them." "Them" meaning "other" meaning "not like us." The trouble with people who have misguided religious beliefs is that they always come from the mode of "our religious belief is right so I won't/cannot change it." This "infallibility" of religious belief is the most infalllible thing about reliigous belief.
8.
Regan | November 14, 2011 at 11:40 am
There is absolutely NOTHING moral in discriminating against people you BENEFIT from. Gays and lesbians are expected to pay taxes, work, engage in supporting the same general welfare as other citizens, yet unknowingly or without a choice, are forced to participate in their own discrimination. Regardless that there IS no morals or competence test for being married, there can't BE any moral point for denying marriage to gay people.
The most reprobate heterosexual can marry, and the most exemplary gay person cannot. THAT is the proof of a lack of moral reasoning.
Any heteros that defend discrimination, are not protecting or making themselves MORAL or virtuous by these laws.
In the same way that Jim Crow didn't make white people more moral or virtuous or deserving because of the establishment of that kind of discrimination.
Can I get a witness?
9.
Be4Marriage | November 14, 2011 at 11:41 am
The Catholic Church just launched their new discriminatory website: http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/
10.
DaveP | November 14, 2011 at 11:55 am
AMEN, Regan!!!!!
11.
Ann S. | November 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm
§
12.
DaveP | November 14, 2011 at 12:02 pm
… Just a heads up – the link at the very end of the article takes you to another article that has a link to a petition that will be delivered to Lassen. Please sign it!
13.
Alan_Eckert | November 14, 2011 at 12:17 pm
I don't have to respect her beliefs, but I do respect her ability to have and voice those beliefs. There is a difference that many people do not understand.
14.
Alan_Eckert | November 14, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Form one of the pages:
"The Church has long worked in ministry to those suffering from HIV/AIDS"
Except when it comes to providing contraception that would reduce transmission rates drastically.
15.
Alan_Eckert | November 14, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Or this gem of a quote:
"Only a man and a woman can authentically speak the language of married love, because only a man and a woman can engage in the act which, by its nature, is designed for bringing new life into the world."
16.
Ronnie | November 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Hallelu!!!!!!!!!!…….. ; ) …Ronnie
17.
Alan_Eckert | November 14, 2011 at 12:25 pm
And this quote is just a rewording of the "just 2 friends" verbiage (emphasis added):
"The presence of a father and a mother – not merely two adults – teaches children about the beauty of sexual difference and what it means to be a boy or girl, a man or woman."
18.
Alan_Eckert | November 14, 2011 at 12:26 pm
The religious liberty page reads like Brian Brown wrote it.
http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/religious…
19.
Ronnie | November 14, 2011 at 12:28 pm
You mean the religious dictatorship page?……. ; ) ..Ronnie
20.
fiona64 | November 14, 2011 at 1:08 pm
What I don't get is how these people miss the cognitive dissonance apparent in their statements. "We love our GLBT customers, so please come spend your money here — but we don't want you to have the same rights as everyone else, so we'll take your money and use it against you." WTF, over? As Alan points out, she's welcome to her beliefs (as are we all) … and we're welcome to boycott the stores for how they treat our GLBT family and friends.
21.
Phillip R | November 14, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Then somehow we are the intolerant ones when we call them out on it.
22.
Carol | November 14, 2011 at 1:36 pm
It sounds like they're talking about body parts.
23.
Gregory in SLC | November 14, 2011 at 1:53 pm
WTF indeed!
24.
Steve | November 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm
I also don't have to respect people's beliefs. First of I think they are nonsense and completely made up. I don't have to give madeup crap any deference. But I may be fine with it if they kept it private and in their churches. It's their life.
But that's just not how it is. Instead they go out and try to influence politics to enshrine their beliefs in law. That's clearly wrong and needs to be opposed.
25.
Steve | November 14, 2011 at 2:36 pm
What you say: "I respect your ability to voice your beliefs"
What she hears: "He respects my ability to enshrine my beliefs in law or bully other people based on them"
26.
Steve | November 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
That's what it's about for them
27.
tim | November 14, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Any buyout or takeover is always "hush hush". That just business. You don't want to tip your hand in case of another competitor comes in.
28.
tim | November 14, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Two comments to make. I looked up Lassen's because I've never heard of it before and found it to be a small little chain of stores in LA. Only 8 retail outlets with a website that looks like that its stuck in the 90s. How is this story remotely of interest to an statewide or even national audience?
Secondly – anyone who uses the words "militant" or "jihad" immediately lose creditability with me and does our movement harm. You don't win battles that way – you just continue to piss people off.
29.
MightyAcorn | November 14, 2011 at 8:19 pm
It's also about gender roles and male hegemony, don't forget that bit.
30.
MightyAcorn | November 14, 2011 at 8:22 pm
There is no cognitive dissonance because there's no cognition going on. This is just parroting of propaganda they are spoonfed by websites like the marriageuniqueforareason one, or NOM. If there was any thought, any cognition actually happening they would be dumbstruck by their own hypocrisy.
31.
MightyAcorn | November 14, 2011 at 8:23 pm
I've shopped at NatureMart so I appreciate the heads-up…I have friends in the area and am only there infrequently so I probably never would have cottoned on otherwise. Thanks!
32.
Meagan | November 14, 2011 at 8:35 pm
LA, huh? It's almost like this website has a CA focus or something. Crazy.
33.
Thark | November 14, 2011 at 9:43 pm
AMAZING, THESE ANTIGAY SHILLS…
What the phoney pious ones like this are basically saying is:
"I don't mind gays myself, but in order for me to get in good with "god" (rolled eyes), or to secure some better "spot in Heaven" or some similarly unfocused, self-serving drivel. "My religion requires gay human sacrifices for "Congregation X" to be favored by their "god".
100% EXACTLY like when the Mayans used to sacrifice warriors and/or virgins to appease their deities.
That all might've been a *swell* basis for lawmaking a few thousand years ago – Like slavery, or mysogynation (spelling?)…
But they all must know deep down that such nonsense is pure crap here in 21st century American lawmaking. history WILL bear this out.
34.
Fluffyskunk | November 14, 2011 at 10:32 pm
You're not alone in wondering what the heck is up with these stories. Who cares about a (minor local) chain of health food stores? Sure it's a bummer that they're owned by a homophobe, but so what? Lots of things are.
35.
James Sweet | November 15, 2011 at 9:58 am
I am soooooo sick of this "respect mah beliefs!" crap. Look people, nobody has to respect anybody else's beliefs. Beliefs are not necessarily innocuous; they can be false and malicious and hateful. If I believed the moon landing was faked, then I would be wrong and nobody would have any compulsion to "respect" that wrong belief.
Nobody is entitled to have their beliefs respected. Period. End of sentence. Somehow people have gotten it in their heads that if you can tie the belief to religion, then it gets respect. How so? How is that? How does a belief become worthy of respect just because you tie it to faith somehow?
And for the record, I am not asking anybody to respect my beliefs, either, at least not just because. I will argue for respect for my beliefs by explaining why they are worthy of respect, why they are correct to the extent that they are factual, and why I hold the opinions that I do in regards to issues which are not factual. It's fucking cowardly not to do that. If you are unable and/or unwilling to defend your beliefs, then I don't have to respect them, you cowards.
This is not even getting into the fact that the issue is not whether the business owner has certain beliefs, but that the business owner donated money to try to force other people to conform to those beliefs. That's just messed up on so many levels. Not only am I both willing and able to defend my beliefs without having to resort to this stupid and cowardly "Respect!" canard, but I would never dream of trying to enforce my beliefs on other people.
But like I say, it's stupid and cowardly and wrong even before you get there. Beliefs are not inherently worthy of respect. If your convictions are so shallow that they are threatened by someone explaining why they think you are wrong, well… what does that tell you?
36.
James Sweet | November 15, 2011 at 10:02 am
It's also stupid because if it's not a civil issue to them, then why the hell did they donate money to get a constitutional amendment passed to dictate how that issue should be handled? It's either a personal moral conviction or it's not. And the actions of this family have already told us the answer: To them, it's not personal, it's something that should be inflicted on every one. i.e. it is a civil issue for them. Cowards and liars, all!
If you stand by your beliefs, DEFEND THEM! Don't just run away when they are challenged and hide behind this stupid "respect" BS.
37.
Steve | November 15, 2011 at 10:30 am
I just saw a nice little speech by Christopher Hitchens on that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed…
He was talking more about faith than beliefs, but what we are talking here IS faith. Belief without evidence.
38.
Sagesse | November 15, 2011 at 10:41 am
We don't have to 'respect' a person's beliefs… we have to respect their right to have them. Society (the law) also can, and does, constrain the person's right to act on their beliefs (North America frowns on honour killing, female genital mutilation, and cutting off a hand as punishment for stealing).
39.
Steve | November 15, 2011 at 1:34 pm
But that's not how these people see it. For them having any kind of beliefs means the right to force them on others. And to prevent them from doing so is discrimination to them
40.
DaveP | November 15, 2011 at 3:28 pm
hi Tim & Fluffyskink. This particular story is of interest largely because of where this store is located. A large percentage of their potential customers would be gay. It would be like having a Chik-fil-a open up in the Castro. We would want to bring it to the attention of folks so they could avoid spending money at a business that uses its profits to harm gay people.
41.
DaveP | November 15, 2011 at 3:33 pm
THANK YOU James. Very well said. I pushed the little 'thumbs up' button twice and got a reminder that I had already pushed it. Then I pushed it again a few more times anyway.
42. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | November 20, 2011 at 2:43 pm
[...] Monday, I wrote about Peter Lassen taking over an LA-area health food store and the local response to it. You may [...]
43.
shelostcontro1 | November 20, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Um, because said owner was one of, if not the biggest donor to Prop 8. How is that irrelevant?
44.
Jeremy | December 6, 2011 at 12:06 pm
I'm familiar with both that location and both businesses that have resided there. My partner does business with them. Did I should say, until he found out that even NatureMart had been donators & contributors to the passage of Prop 8. Sadly for the prolific LGBT population in that area, they've unwittingly been supporting a h8-monger for years. But I am glad to know that Lassen's is just more of the same. He's been actively persuing them as a client for a while (Mr. Lassen being more or less unapproachable). Sadly I had to pass this on to him. Means the loss of more potential revenue of his business (in a broad picture sort of way) but he chose to drop nature mart as a client because morals are worth more than money. Now he can make the decision to continue persuing Lassen or moving onto more upstanding stores.
45.
Jeremy | December 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Wow, that was fast. Once he verified the bad news, he just said that he was dropping Lassen as a potential client. Feel bad that I took away that from him, but it was his decision to make.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.