|
Published: February 25, 2009
“Obscene Valentine's Day cards in the mail”
Family-owned ice cream shop in Sacramento targeted by backers of same-sex marriage
A family-owned ice cream shop and restaurant in Sacramento that has been in business for 27 years is struggling to survive – but not just because of the current economic downturn. Leatherby’s Family Creamery on Arden Way has been targeted by proponents of same-sex marriage because the Catholic family that owns it contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign at the request of their bishop.
Members of the Leatherby family gave $20,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign, the successful constitutional amendment passed by voters in November 2008 that bans same-sex marriages in California. Alan Leatherby, 46, a Catholic father of six who has been married to Patty Leatherby for 22 years, told the Sacramento Bee he and other family members decided to make the contribution after being contacted by Sacramento Bishop Jaime Soto, who asked for his support.
"We didn't hesitate because the institution of marriage between a man and a woman is something we believe in," Leatherby told the Bee.
But when the Leatherby family’s support of Proposition 8 became a matter of public record, the business was targeted by same-sex marriage supporters. “They've been picketed, employees wearing company sweat shirts have been harassed, angry callers have phoned their creamery at all hours of the day,” the Bee reported. “Hundreds of angry e-mails have come in. Bloggers have targeted their business. Last week, Alan Leatherby received obscene Valentine's Day cards in the mail.”
Leatherby told the newspaper, “There is no way we could have prepared for the kind of reaction we got… Business is actually down and that worries me. Can a business sustain that kind of negativity in the long-term? God only knows."
Shortly after the November election, business at the creamery actually increased when supporters of the proposition made it a point to frequent the business. But since then, that enthusiasm has waned, Leatherby told the Bee.
Leatherby's Creamery and the Leatherby family are well regarded in the Sacramento region because the company has often donated ice cream to area charities, said the Bee. “Leatherby is active in the volunteer community,” the newspaper reported. “He built the stairs and helped renovate Hope House, the one-time AIDS hospice.”
Leatherby, said the Bee, “has tried to answer each e-mail and every phone call because he believes that it is the Christian thing to do. He is not ‘a hater,’ he tells those on the other side of the issue.” In one instance, Leatherby agreed to a meeting over lunch with a 70-year-old man on the opposite side of the same-sex marriage issue, according to the Bee. “It's much better to sit down and talk face to face than make an anonymous phone call," the Prop. 8 opponent, Dan Souza, told the newspaper. "Alan and I are on different sides of the issue, but we've had pleasant talks. We just have different beliefs."
Given the difficulties the family business has faced in the aftermath of its support for Proposition 8, does Leatherby regret his decision? "I really don't," Leatherby told the Bee. "I'm excited to stand up for the institution of marriage and for my faith."
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:22 AM By Charles O'Connell
Just as Leatherby's ice-cream is of the highest quality, their food is very good. Unfortunately, this means that it is rather a luxury to go there. I think Alan is mistaken to think that the downturn in business is due to Yes on Eight ("Others Hate"). Restaurant business is down everywhere. God will abundantly outdo in generosity, Alan, his large extended family, his employees and customers, and all those who are willing to sacrifice and suffer in defense of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:19 AM By PilsunUSA
This man is an inspiration. Its easy for us to send an email or letter in furtherance of a belief, but to put your livelihood on the line? Courage! I'll be praying for the Leatherby family.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:59 AM By George Belanger
This is a cross from the Lord for you to bear. It takes fortitude. God Bless
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:01 AM By St. Christopher
What a man. Mr. Leatherby is similar to Rev. Hoye in standing up for his faith. Readers should consider contributions to him. Additionally, aren't a number of federal and other laws being violated by such tactics (e.g., using the US Mail for "hate mail"). He would surely have a civil action possibility if he knew his tormentors.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:13 AM By Tom Byrne
So Ernst Rohm's bully-boys are at it again. Had the tables been reversed and the Leatherbys been targeted by conservatives for supporting gay couplings, you know where the press and police would be.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:26 AM By Mary Ann Kreitzer
There is no act of white martyrdom that will not be rewarded by Jesus Christ. May God bless this Catholic family!
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:54 AM By Deborah
I just wanted to give you an update that business at Leatherby's seems to be booming! Someone sent out an email to local Christians about the tough times Leatherby's was facing and church folk came out in droves to buy ice cream and show their support! Rumor has it one of the Leatherby's commented, "Now I know how George Bailey felt at the end of It's a Wonderful Life!"
Our homeschool group just went on a tour of Leatherby's and we were so impressed with the business. What a neat, faith-filled family -- and you can't beat the incredible ice cream!
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:11 AM By Kell
I personally recommend the peppermint ice cream with hot fudge. (Anything for the cause!)
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:42 AM By Fr. J
Let's boycott gay owned businesses.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:24 AM By pete
One word says it all: FASCISTS who do this sort of things!
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:24 AM By Grisha
Mary Ann Kreitzer: What is "white martyrdom?"
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:44 PM By Zack
Pete - by your logic, the group Focus on the Family also are fascists as they advocated boycotts of major corporations (Ford, McDonald's, etc) because they advertised in gay publications. Will you be consistent and condemn those boycotts?
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:45 PM By Observation
Thugs smashing reputational windows of businesses. It's "Vitriolnacht."
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:22 PM By Anne T.
This family has my prayers, and all you pro-family, pro-life, pro-Prop 8 people in that area make sure you buy ice cream from them.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 6:25 PM By Anne T.
Zack, those boycotts worked, too, but the government keeps bailing them out. They can keep bailing because the boat (anti-family companies) is sunk.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 7:57 PM By Elizabeth
I wished I lived in Sacramento........
I would make it a point to purchase ice cream from them.....
Prayers coming their way.....
Bless their hearts!
|
Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:15 PM By Robert W
As probably one of the only gay people posting on this blog, I would like to state that I strongly disagree with many here and the Leatherby Family on the definition of "civil marriage". I will work as long as I'm on this earth to restore marriage equality to our great state. I however, have no ill will toward the Leatherby family, and wish them the best in this hard economic time. I have found many of the actions of extremes on both sides to be quite repugnant. I have no issue with boycotts however as they are a legal means in which any side of an issue can show discontent to the other side peaceably. Even though I disagree with Leatherby's position I think it speaks very highly of Alan Leatherby that he is willing to answer as many email letters etc as possible, and even meet opponents in person. Although we disagree I see no reason to show any disregard for tact in addressing those of a different mindset/ position. There is one thing I would like to point out in response to a few of the posts here if you will please. I know I am gay and that is an issue that we see differently, however I would ask you to please realize the LGBT community is not anti family. I was raised in a loving Catholic home myself, and although I am of a different orientation, I share many of the same family values of commitment, fidelity, and respect to name a few that many in the Catholic/ Christian community value. I personally know many same sex couples that are in long term relationships that share these same values, and quite a few of them have either adopted children or have biological children from past marriages. These are wonderful, committed, loving couples that have formed real and meaningful families. They are certainly pro family. Thanks for your time in reading this post and I ask that we can all be civil in our responses. Alan Leatherby has certainly set a good example for this.
|
Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:32 AM By Kell
About "white martyrdom" -- I cringed a bit when I saw that, but it's NOT some racial thing. This is from catholic.org ("red" martyrdom is when someone sheds blood, i.e. is killed, as a martyr). "This is a martyrdom without blood, without the violent taking of life. White martyrdom is a total offering to God, a “dying” to the world and its allurements. A white martyr willingly gives up worldly concerns and makes his or her life a perpetual pilgrimage. A white martyr lives a life of heroic devotion for Him alone, eagerly uniting that devotion with Christ’s sufferings."
|
Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:55 PM By JLS
Robert W, your post is hard to follow in any logical way. Could you trim it and make it clear?
|
Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:04 PM By Mark from PA
Robert W, I just want to say that your post made sense to me. It is good that you share many of the same family values that many in the Catholic/Christian community value. To me being pro-family means respecting all families. Just because a person is gay does not mean that they are anti-family.
|
Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:39 PM By Alan
What does "white martyrdom" have to do with a commerical ice cream business that had itself claimed to "support" the gay pride festival?
|
Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:44 PM By JLS
PA, does Robert W's first phrase make any sense to you? Here it is, "As probably one of the only gay people posting on this blog". His grammar following this is just as bad ... but if it makes sense to you, PA, that's ok.
|
Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:33 PM By English Teacher
JLS, the phrase you cite is grammatically correct, but people (or persons, as some may say) may belong to different schools of thought on that. Some might say "few" instead of "only", but Webster's says "only" can mean "few". And some might say "persons" instead of "people", but the plural form "persons" is slowly retreating in usage, and "people" is now widely used in whatever circumstance we need the plural of "person", says The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield.
|
Posted Friday, February 27, 2009 2:56 AM By Robert W
Sorry for the delay in response. It's been a very busy day. I'll do my best to summarize my previous post.
I was trying to say that not all of us in the gay community condone the actions, threats and harassment that have been used against those who supported the ban on gay marriage. It's nice to see Alan Leatherby taking time out of his day to respond to as many letters as possible. I have a lot of respect for him making that effort. As for the second part of my post, I think Mark from PA does a good job summarizing what I was trying to say when he said. "To me being pro-family means respecting all families. Just because a person is gay does not mean that they are anti-family."
|
Posted Friday, February 27, 2009 9:10 AM By Almond Milk
I told you that the opponents can get nasty. It is crazy that people who oppose are called "haters". I never use that word towards anyone, even those who oppose my faith. Even though truly they are "haters" because anyone who rejects Christ's teachings and His church, they are the ones deserving of that hate name. So this business deserves to be called "lovers" because they acted noble in their decision to donate to a worthy cause, now that is honoring Jesus and the true definition of marriage, the sacrament between one man and one woman. There is no debate about that! Anyone care to argue, talk to the wall!
|
Posted Friday, February 27, 2009 3:57 PM By JLS
Eglish Teecher: " one of the only gay people " has no meaning. There is no such thing as "one of the only"; there is likewise no such thing as "the only gay people".
|
Posted Friday, February 27, 2009 6:41 PM By English Teacher
JLS, words can have many meanings. Webster''s says "only" can mean "few", and in that way, the phrase "one of the only" would mean "one of the few", and the phrase "the only gay people" would mean "the few gay people", both of which are meaningful phrases. Even when "only" does not mean few, the phrase "the only gay people" can still have meaning, just as "the only African-American people in town live on the south side" can have meaning.
|
Posted Friday, February 27, 2009 7:44 PM By RR
JLS: I agree with you. I was also confused about Robert W's first sentence. What's funny though is that I was more confused with the English Teachers explaination that I was with Robert W's first sentence. Go figure! I hope I didnt' make eny Grammer, Speling, or Punctuasion arrors in this post. HA, Ha
|
Posted Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:30 AM By Fr. M.P.
Robert W, nature itself, from the beginning of mankind, long before any system of law, long before any country, and very very long before California existed, defines what marriage is. That's civil precedence. That existed even before God created His religion delivered Personally to earth - Catholicism. Marriage is only between a man and a woman, who may (God permitting) also have children to carry on the human race, and, as studies have shown, always result in the best kids for a normal environmental upbringing. So there is even scientific evidence for nature. Please don't bring up abnormal situations as an excuse to have your own desired abnormal situation of homosexual joinages, which are in no way natural or marriage. It is only in the last 30 years of the marketing of homosexual behavior - and it is a planned marketing scheme - that there is a question about marriage. Keep your marketing plan out of people's bedrooms.
|
Posted Saturday, February 28, 2009 4:35 PM By Gerard Martine
What the word "marriage" means was defined by language, i.e. by people, and not by "nature itself, from the beginning of mankind," but from the 12th century on, when it was invented as part of the English language..Since then, the meaning of the English word "marriage" has continued to vary and evolve. Its meaning is different in Arkansas than in South Africa, can be different to a same sex couple than to an opposite sex couple, or different to a newlywed than to a divorcee, or different to a man than to a woman. In fact, the meaning of the word "marriage" is different from person to person, from religion to religion, from culture to cultuie, from one century to the next. Moses and St. Paul never heard of, much less ever spoke, the English word "marriage". People who insist that "marriage" can only mean one thing are like people who insist that a martini can only be made with vodka. They're welcome to their opinion, but no one else has to drink it.
|
Posted Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:30 PM By JLS
Martinis are normally made with gin. But why quibble over externals, when we can deal with the essentials such as the alcohol? Jesus teaches that "from the beginning" man was meant to have one wife ... meaning a woman. He teaches this in the context of the institution called in English "marriage", that word that rhymes so well in the ditty, "horse and carriage" and does not work too well with, "horse and horse" or "carriage and carriage". You have to remember, Gerard M., that "words do not a horse race make": It is the relationship that perpetuates the family of God, intended for all men from the beginning, as taught by the Church, who received it from Jesus Christ, Who explains that it was always like this ... that is, that it is the natural state of man and woman, and was always so. That is why you hear or read bishops proclaiming this truth.
|
Posted Sunday, March 01, 2009 4:53 PM By Gerard Martine
JLS, there is more than one "institution called in English 'marriage'", as evidenced by the fact that today we have civil institutions of numerous varieties called "marriage" which do not match with the institution that the Church calls "marriage". Therefore it's inaccurate and misleading to say that Jesus was teaching "in the context of THE institution called in English 'marriage." Rather, Jesus was teaching in the context of ONE of THE institutions called in English "marriage". As to "words do not a horse race make", that is what I say every time a bishop forgets. Multiple institutions can be called in English "marriage". People are not so stupid as to think one marriage is interchangeable with another any more than a person would think one screw is interchangeable with another. There are different kinds for different purposes, though they all be called screws. One form is needed for reproduction, but not everyone is called to that institution. As Jesus said, “Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” (And BTW, in salute to our sober guests, alcohol is not essential to a martini!)
|
Posted Sunday, March 01, 2009 6:23 PM By JLS
Wrong, Gerard M. When Jesus teaches about marriage, He teaches about marriage of man and woman, about the Bridegroom (Himself) and the Bride (the Church). A martini without alcohol is an illusion ... what is the point of such a thing? Marriage without bride and groom is an illusion also and has no point.
|
Posted Sunday, March 01, 2009 11:59 PM By Anne T.
White martyrdom means to be persecuted for righteouness sake -- for the sake of Christ.
|
Posted Monday, March 02, 2009 12:15 AM By Gerard Martine
JLS, as you said, when Jesus spoke in the Bible about marriage, he spoke about the man/woman form of marriage (not surprising since he was responding to a question about man/woman marriage). To that, I've said nothing to the contrary. And when he spoke of wine, who would think he was speaking about wine made from mangos? But that doesn't mean wine can't be made from mangos or that the English word "marriage" can't refer to other civil institutions including those not between man/woman. Indeed, mango wine exists (delicious!), and the word "marriage" can refer to other civil institutions, or anything at all for that matter. Of course, if you don't think "martini" can mean a non-alcoholic drink, that's fine. Like I said, you're welcome to your opinion, serve it as you please, but no one else has to drink it. Cheers!
|
Posted Monday, March 02, 2009 5:44 AM By Fr. M.P.
Gerard shows us how to attempt to make word games to get what he wants. Of course the English word marriage wasn't around for a while. But every culture without exception had an event, called some word in their own language, to join a man and woman together to become a family and raise children. Gerard's rejection of the infallible word of God is telling, but that of course is exactly what the Bible says in Romans chapter 1. Words, Gerard, are to reflect reality, and are not what you want to make them up to be. Why should we accept your relativistic definition of the English word marriage? Because you say so? That's why the marketing plan to hijack 'gay' is a lie, an imposition of unnatural relativists.
|
Posted Monday, March 02, 2009 6:28 AM By Kevin
Good to see the LGBT community and allies rally together against bigotry and H8. Why should we spend our money at the places of business that spend their profits to remove our rights?
|
Posted Monday, March 02, 2009 3:13 PM By JLS
Kevin, why should the homosexualist community want to go forth into the world and hassle people who do not approve of it?
|
Posted Monday, March 02, 2009 3:30 PM By Gerard Martine
Fr. M.P., I appreciate all that you say, and like I've already said, you don't have to accept how I use words. Instead, you can use them as you please, and in fact, that's exactly what each person does in choosing the words he speaks as well as in how each persons understands what he reads. It's all in keeping with the very essence of language. At times, we may choose to use (i.e. write or read) words as we expect the specific person to whom we are speaking/listening already understands them, and at other times, we may choose to use words as some broader culture may use them. It can also be, and indeed always is, an art in progress, whereby what you see is but a reflection of yourself. If you don't appreciate it, you simply lack appreciation of your own perspective. Great is the mystery of God.
|
Posted Monday, March 02, 2009 4:28 PM By Mark from PA
Is homosexualist a word? I have never heard of this word before. Why not just say the gay community?
|
Posted Monday, March 02, 2009 7:08 PM By JLS
PA, the word "homosexualist" is used to differentiate the condition from the behavior. Homosexual is a condition; homosexualist is a homosexually active homosexual. This word frequently has appeared on this site for almost a year.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|