Pacquiao Banned From L.A. Mall for Anti-Gay Marriage Comments
Boxing superstar and Obama fan Manny Pacquiao may be one of the world’s most powerful celebrities, but that didn’t stop a mall operator in Los Angeles from banning him for his outspoken opposition to gay marriage.
Rick Caruso, an Obama supporter and owner of The Grove, a popular shopping and entertainment resort in Los Angeles, tweeted that the iconic boxing champion and politician would no longer be allowed “on the premises” because of his recent statements against gay marriage.
“Boxer Manny Pacquiao is not welcome @TheGroveLA,” Caruso tweeted. “@TheGroveLA is a gathering place for all Angelenos, not a place for intolerance.” The religious Pacquiao was supposed to do an interview today with “Extra” at The Grove.
Now that shows the hypocrisy of the leftist Obama supporters. I don’t agree with Pacquiao’s gay marriage stance, but I find the mall owners’ tweet hypocritical and ironic.
I believe that no one has the right to vote against the right of others to marry. Also, I don’t buy the concept of LGTB rights. There is no such thing as LGTB rights; there is only individual rights. But I believe no one has the right to vote against the rights of any person or group of persons to marry whoever they want to marry. Marriage is a personal choice. Society or government should have no right to interfere with that right or freedom of choice. Marriage is NOT exclusively a religious idea/concept. Even the pagans in the ancient world had this concept of marriage. In effect, marriage is a secular idea; it’s about the right of anyone to associate or to contract.
Here’s an opinion piece from Breitbat.com:
What did heretofore-Obama-supporter Pacquiao do to earn the ban? He did an interview with the National Conservative Examiner in which he said, “God’s words first … obey God’s law first before considering the laws of man. God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married. It should not be of the same sex, so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.” In other words, like the vast majority of religious people of all persuasions around the world, Pacquiao is against same-sex marriage.
That now earns him a ban from a public area in Los Angeles. And make no mistake – while Caruso is the owner of the complex, he relies heavily on public funding in his projects.
The left wants to claim intolerance here, but it is surely the highest form of intolerance not to allow a religious person who openly expresses him or herself onto the premises of an outdoor shopping mall. In fact, The Grove features a kosher hot dog stand frequented by Orthodox Jews, virtually all of whom oppose same-sex marriage. Will Caruso ban them? Are all of those who believe in traditional scriptural interpretation, and who oppose same-sex marriage, no longer welcome at Caruso’s myriad establishments?
Caruso is an emissary of the leftist thought police who say that you don’t deserve the privileges of decent treatment if you “haven’t evolved.” Pacquiao has done nothing to harm or mistreat gays or lesbians; he actually says he has a gay relative, and that gays and lesbians can’t do anything about their orientation because they were born that way. But that’s not enough – he has to bow to the politically correct same-sex marriage crowd or be barred from the premises.
Granville Ampong of the Examiner who interviewed Pacquiao said a number of biased and leftist writers “grossly twisted” the boxing icon’s view on same-sex marriage. A writer from the USA Today claimed that Pacquiao said that ” a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman” must be “put to death.” “That, Pacquiao never said nor recited, nor invoked and nor did he ever refer to such context,” Ampong said.
Another writer from LA Weekly also wrote: “Manny Pacquiao Says Gay Men Should Be ‘Put to Death.” Ampong said the article “carries unfair, convoluted remarks, as a matter of opinion.”
Ampong, in his defense of the boxing superstar, wrote the following:
As we see, nowhere in my supposition and integration of my interview with Pacquiao did I mention that Pacquiao recited this Leviticus 20:13 nor did I imply that Pacquiao had quoted such. I have simply reminded in my column how God made it clear in the Old Testament time that such practice of same-sex marriage is detestable and strictly forbidden, in as much as God wants to encourage his people practices that lead to health and happiness and fullness of life. As my style of literary writing suggests in almost all of my columns, the critical thoughts I tied up in the structure of thoughts I wanted to convey pertinent to this issue at hand do not translate Pacquiao’s point of view, however conservative I am in my exposition.
And the same text has now been grossly misconstrued and regarded as Pacquiao’s text, that which is not.
I hereby demand both Weir and Romero to apologize to Pacquiao. They, being writers for USA Today and LA Weekly respectively, should have a better reading comprehension than I do, rhetorically.
Though I am critical of Pacquiao in some way, I strongly commend Pacquiao’s standing relative to same-sex marriage issue as only that has bearing to the morality side. What I see in him is a man who accepts everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.