Shoot, everyone who knows my family knows we don't really go out of our way for attention, but we seem to get it anyways. A few days ago, Political Watch Central Coast, posts an article after they discovered that someone in the Lassen family (apparently Dave Lassen, whoever he is, head of the Lassen's "corporation," which doesn't exist) donated a sizable sum of money to the Proposition 8 campaign. It wasn't me and I don't know who did it and I'm not even sure if the amount is correct although commenters seemed to confirm the accuracy. Commenters also began to comment on boycotting the stores and perhaps picketing them. That would be a sight to see indeed. Especially the smaller ones. I'd probably come down just to watch such a silly act. Fortunately someone in our family has a few friends and they stuck up for us and told us about the development. This started a large discussion, of which I involved myself heavily.
Over the course of the past two days of this debate, the writer also discovered the active involvement of the Mormon church in this matter and wrote another article exposing such diabolical scheming and hatemongering. So I involved myself in this debate as well.
I must say, I kinda enjoyed it. The two posts can be found here:
Lassen's Article
Mormon Church Involvement Article
In some ways I'm glad that the blog isn't read more, and other ways I'm sad because no one will read such excellent arguments made in favor of Proposition 8. But sadly, I get more comments on this blog than Political Watch does (with the exception of the two controversial posts) on theirs, and that's not a lot. So, I'm going to do a favor and recommend the few of you who read my ramblings head on over and at least drive the traffic to their site up more than normal for the next couple days. That way they can feel better about themselves.
P.S. I wasn't posting under Lassensurf because I was having gimpy problems registering with Wordpress. How embarassing....
16 comments:
I read you wrote on their site. Nice job! I laughed pretty hard about that Dave Lassen thing. Maybe there really is someone named Dave Lassen and whoever wrote the article saw that this guy made a contribution and assumed he was part of the corporation that is Lassens. How funny.
So, you are a member of the Lassen's family that owns the store in Ventura, etc.? Did your family donate 27K or not to yes on prop. 8? Inquiring minds want to know...especially minds that have been spending money there for years. Thanks in advance.
If howdy is still checking this, sorry for the slow response, been pretty busy.
I don't know what amounts my family or the stores have or have not donated. It's not my business and it is up to them. I have nothing to do with the finances of the stores or family members. I myself have nothing to do with the stores, it's management, finances, or benefits (The only benefit of relation I receive currently are the occasional gift of hard-to-find food items, the danish sausage made in the Camarillo store is AMAZING)
So, as a complete removal of myself from the stores, I can say that my wife and I have donated the very meager amount that poor students as ourselves could donate to the Yes on 8 campaign. I can give you some extremely good reasons that you've probably not heard before as to why. Outside of that, you'd have to ask family members what or if they've donated as I would have to do to find out. Try it, walk into one of the stores and ask to speak to the owner about it.
If you talk to Doris (T.O.), Peter (Ven, Ox, San. Maria, Goleta, Bakersfield), John (Camarillo and Santa Clarita), or Jim (Simi), they might tell you (but Peter might be hard to get a hold of as he spends his time at his various locations). The stores are individually owned and operated by their owners including finances and accounting.
As far as the Dave Lassen mentioned in the article goes, we don't know who he his and he is not related to our family.
I'm curious why you're interested.
Thank you for responding. The owner of Lassen's in Ventura did in fact donate approx. $30K to the yes on 8 campaign. This was confirmed by the store manager.
I am open to hearing your reasons why 8 should pass.
My curiosity is based in a belief of equality for all. I have been shopping at the Ventura store for at least 10 years, and have never begrudged the owner his religious beliefs. What I begrudge is wanting to deny others' rights because of said beliefs, whatever denomination they are based in.
Check in with you later.
Proposition 8 wouldn't deny anyone any rights. It's a name. We're protecting a name. That is all. Anyone can get married into a heterosexual marriage. No one is being denied that right. As long as our bodies are still under our control, everybody has that right, regardless of preference.
As far as legal rights go, the California family code gives all rights to domestic partnerships as married couples:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
Simple as that. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else. This is about distinguishing two different institutions by a historical and traditional name from what is newly created. That reason alone should be enough to pass Prop 8, but everyone else gets tangled up in arguments over what "might be" and shouts of "inequality and descrimination" as if it's news that domestic partnerships don't have the rights they do. This is over a name.
I think the title "domestic partnerships" could be improved upon, but that's another battle and it shouldn't be called a marriage since that would just be confusing.
If couples want to participate in ceremonies and vows, no one is going to stop them, or I certainly won't.
Marriage has historically been a religious institution that happens to have certain government protections. Other partnerships have also received the same government protection. Why start mixing up names when in the sight of the government they are the same? It would only help the public image to do so, but it would be a superficial benefit that might or might not (depending on the person, sadly) disappear upon discovery of the actual nature of any union regardless of the name.
Most of the rest of the world would just become curious about which sort of "marriage" we're referring to when introducing ourselves as "married from California" and remain in their current mindsets concerning any type of union.
Christian Soldier is right. We should really keep things the way they are; progress is overrated. Separate but equal, it worked for the colored...
Anonymous,
The sarcasm doesn't help anyone's opinion of your intelligence. I wrote three different responses and realized I was still having trouble focusing on what point you were trying to make. I know it's hard to be articulate in writing thoughts, but please try and don't result to vague sarcastic comments as attacks on what I say. Be logical and fair or don't bother polluting anyone's screens with your text.
This article is not about "progress". Your attack is merely a distraction from the discussion at hand. Don't throw around the word "progress" like it is some sort of ideal to give all to achieve and that anyone who disagrees with you is a caveman. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. I'm all for the advancement and discovery of new arenas of the human race's mind and emotions, but not at the expense of social and moral anarchy.
You're still comparing a behavioral trait to a non-behavioral trait. You elevate homosexuality to the status of race. This is wrong. While there are genetic factors that would favor a homosexual mentality, the end result is still at the mercy of everyone's discretion, no one is forced to be homosexual by their genes.
Race cannot be changed by behavior.
Unless you can find a flaw in this reasoning, homosexuality cannot be compared to race.
My wife and I have stopped shopping at Lassens until a donation of an equivalent or greater amount is made to a pro-gay-marriage organization in the Lassens name.
Okay, your loss. You shouldn't waste your time telling me, or anybody really. It won't change anyone's mind at the store managerial level. You've only shown more intolerance for other's rights and opinions in that statement than anyone who voted for the proposition. And I'm guessing you didn't actually pay any attention to any of the comments made or the articles themselves when you read them.
Also, do you plan on boycotting EVERY business and individual that differed in opinion from you on this topic? You'll have to avoid the majority of people in southern California. You might have to move to the northern coast to make friends.
I do know of a number of people who've promised to shop at the store and recommend it to others BECAUSE of the donation, so lose 1, gain 5. Still, your loss.
I have stopped shopping at lassens as well. I have no problem with the owner donating money under his name, NOT the company name. I know a lot of employees that were completely against prop 8. This issue is not about gay rights, it's about civil rights!
The only reason the store was mentioned on the donation at all is because the owners are self-employed and every donor is required to list an employer. It is their personal money to do with as they please.
If you know a lot of employees that were against it, you might be exaggerating, since the members of the family who work there only know of one or two in the Ventura store (as for the Camarillo, Oxnard, and TO stores, there are no employees known by the family to be against the donations). Even the openly homosexual manager of the Santa Barbara store didn't have a problem with it when discussing it with the owner. If he has said otherwise, not much can be done for that, then. This I discovered over the holiday when visiting with family members.
I encourage anyone reading to do the same. Participate in discussions, not attacks.
You're absolutely retarded. Marriage has its roots as a business and not in religion. Look up the history of marriage and stop spreading bullshit. I'm never shopping at your store again
@patrick c
I would have to assume via your choice of words a general level of your intelligence. This assumption and your accusation led me to think that your source for a history of marriage came from Wikipedia (that's ok, it's a pretty good source). Unfortunately it doesn't describe any origin stories of marriage, only mentioning that different cultures have different origin stories. No specifics are actually addressed or shared, only possibilities or rationalizations for some of the origins.
The idea that marriage was a business institution comes from the Wikipedia section on early European marriages during the Feudal era. Marriages have taken place for a few thousand years before this. Again, what are the origins? The earliest dated source referring to marriage seems to be the Code of Hammurabi. I have looked through the code (it's not that long) and it doesn't describe the origin of marriage either, it only sets forth certain rights and laws pertaining to married peoples (most of them to protect women and children).
Other early descriptions of the ORIGINS of marriage come from the Bible or other ancient religious texts or traditions written or created roughly in the same millenia as the Code of Hammurabi, thus affording the claim that it is originally a religious institution.
If you can refute these statements, I would enjoy hearing it. But if/when you do, please be more civil and avoid emotionally charged and tempestuous dialogue.
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
I appreciate you entertaining this topic even though it does not really seem to be your official job to defend Lassen's Health Food Stores. I used to spend maybe $100-$300 per month at Lassen's. I am bisexual and feel strongly that same sex couples should be able to marry and call it as such.
When someone at my UU church mentioned the Lassen's donation to Prop 8 I went into the Ventura store and asked the manager if this was true (since I do not take word of mouth info as fact). The manager told me verbatim: "Lassen's does not have a political agenda. Our agenda is health and health only." This satisfied me and I continued to shop there and even defended Lassen's for a bit against my friends who were boycotting.
Then a couple months later I came across a public record of the donations which showed the $25,000 donation to Yes on Prop 8. This floored me for several reasons. One being that Lassen's target demographic has got to be overall fairly progressive politically and such a political statement would seem to jeopardize their target customer base. Another being that I was blatantly lied to by the store itself.
So I did what any concerned citizen should do first, I wrote a letter to Lassen's. It stated what I had been told by the manager, what I had found in public record, what kind of customer I was, and it was not vicious or rude but simply asked for an explanation. I received no response whatsoever to my letter (which I both emailed and sent regular mail). This was the final reason I ceased all shopping at Lassen's.
I made this decision carefully after weighing the environmental and financial costs of trekking up to Rainbow Bridge in Ojai for my health food store needs. I decided it was worth drawing a line in the sand to me.
Funny thing is... I would have had no problem with Lassen's if the money had been donated say from the CEO's personal account. Everyone is responsible to take part in government the way their conscience directs them. But Ventura Lassen's donated the company's money. Essentially "voting" with dollars I helped Lassen's amass. The fact that Lassen's did not have the courtesy to be honest with or communicate with a loyal customer is what really iced the cake though.
Thanks again for your intelligently expressed side of this... I always prefer to disagree with people who have actually thought about their position and what they believe.
If Loni happens to check this looking for a response, please understand: Lassen's is not incorporated nor part of any corporate entity. There is no CEO, only the individual owners (most of whom are siblings). While the owner may wish to keep the political stance of his business separate from his own political involvement, he does not have that present luxury. On donation forms, donors are required to list their employment/source of income. Since he is self-employed as owner of a small business, he is required to place the store as his employer. While he may have separate accounts to manage the funds set aside for his business, he was still required to list his own personal money as coming from his source of employment. In case this is not clear, I just want to restate: It was his own personal money used in the donation, not corporate funds. His political motions are his own, and not necessarily backed by his employees, clients, or customers.
I appreciate the understanding language to your comment.
Post a Comment