Sometimes the shades of gray are such that it's hard to know how we should respond, both in terms of the degree of "punishment" that is merited and the PR factors which will ensue either to the credit or detriment of the gay community.

A recent example is the controversy about El Coyote, a semi-iconic restaurant in LA. The anti-gay marriage ballot initiative received a small donation ($100) from one of the family members who owns the restaurant and who has worked there for many years as a hostess. The restaurant itself has many gay employees (who may lose jobs if the restaurant slows or closes due to a boycott). El Coyote has also been a very popular hangout for gays, always welcoming us, no hint of anything less than a "we're glad you're here and queer" atmosphere. The restaurant has supported gay causes in the past and after the sh*t hit the fan about this latest thing, announced they would make further donations to the gay and lesbian center and the Lambda Legal Defense fund. Moreover, the employees have donated $500 toward overturning the gay marriage ban.

So...should the employees, gay and straight, suffer the consequences of a bad decision by one partial owner of the company? Should the gay community continue to patronize the place knowing a small portion of their dinner bill will end up in the pocket of the woman who gave money to restrict their civil rights?

My personal take in this is the cost/benefits are such that a boycott is unwarranted. I wouldn't like to punish one individual at the cost of harming so many others. Yet I understand the anger and frustration of those who are calling for a boycott as well. It's a no-win situation.

For the record, I used to go there occasionally (I lived in LA for 20 years). Food is not bad and the margaritas are good and the atmosphere was always pleasant.