Comments

  1. MikeBoston says

    The stupid, it continues to burn!

    She thinks all her critics are trying to deny her the right to speak? She has no clue that the objections are to what she is saying not that she has no right to say it.

    Another bigot trying to play the victim.

    The voters should be ashamed of themselves.

  2. QJ201 says

    So the first amendment covers thoughts? Did I miss some new mind reading tech and a supreme court case or something.

    Another conservative idiot. Another minority that in another place and time in the US would have had HER RIGHTS DEBATED.

    Sad

  3. Tigerama says

    “It’s unfortunate that I was betrayed, but I stand behind my words because it’s my right.”

    Yet again, a person who doesn’t understand the First Amendment.

    But asian bitches are like that.

  4. mike says

    its actually about her opinions and how they affect her sense of equality for the constituents she represents. If she were an open racist who said she thought black or Asian people were disgusting surely she would be fired because it would be thought that she wouldnt treat everyone equally ? It is actually about her ability to legislate with impartialiy that is in question. She can think what she wants to privately but she said this at work whilst discussing public policy.

  5. I wont grow up says

    She certainly has the right to express her opinion, the same as I have the right to express mine, and the voters also have the right to vote her out of office.

  6. Dastius Krazitauc says

    Someone should ask Chan how she feels about the situation with gays in Russia, where they actually are being arrested, and worse, for their speech. Somehow, I bet she thinks that is a dandy law.

  7. Steve says

    Typical Christian morans. Nobody is talking about throwing her in jail. Which is all “freedom of speech” protects her from. Why don’t so many Americans fail to understand that?

  8. Lucca says

    It is not a 1st Amendment issue. She did not state this in public or even in private, really. She was in a strategy meeting on taxpayers’ time; strategizing against a part of the constituency. She was scheming, and that is NOT a guaranteed right by the US Constitution.

  9. candideinnc says

    Poor, put upon, victimized politician. She is betrayed by her own words. She is free to say we are disgusting, and we are free to kick her sorry ass out of office. The “betrayal” here is the betrayal of her constituent gay and lesbian voters who expect public “servants” to work for them rather than sit in judgment of them. I will fight to the death for her right to freedom of speech, and I will do everything in my power to make her an unemployed bigot, despised by one and all–as she deserves to be.

  10. Jack M says

    How dare she use the Constitution to defend her statmeents! If she is in a staff meeting, she needs to be professional and keep those opinions to herself. What an ignorant, hateful woman. I wonder how she feels when people make racist comments against Asians?

  11. MikeBoston says

    Her Facebook page is fully locked up. It appears she doesn’t welcome the point of view of others in an open forum.

    As someone who grew up in China, she should have a greater understanding and appreciation for the freedoms protected by the US Constitution and not abuse those freedoms in a attempt to silence her critics.

    Oh, and she is an unintelligent bigot.

  12. woodroad34d says

    So, she says something in “private” during a work session and tries to intimate that her private thoughts have nothing to do with her job. What does she base her decisions on,then? Someone else’ reasoning? She’s a liar, a phoney, and rationally-challenged, which in toto makes her a bad leader and unfit for her job.

  13. Jere says

    All people running for political office should be required to take a basic civics/government course and then a more in-depth legal course pertaining to their state, city, or to the Federal government, depending upon the office they seek. This woman is an embarrasment to San Antonio, not just because of her views, but also because she does not seem to understand the basic parts of the Constitution that she’s referencing.

  14. Ernst Rhoem's Ghost says

    Gays may have to accept the fact that a certain percentage of the population thinks homosexuality is wrong. It is impossible to criminalize that opinion. Technically, this councilwoman really COULD have sat in that meeting and said that blacks are inferior. There is no law against saying so. Under the Constitution, there cannot be.

    To bring about a legal situation pleasing to the average Towleroad commentator, there would have to be a new constitutional amendment: “It shall be unlawful to indicate, by word or deed, the belief that any group in the population is bad or undesirable.” No such lunatic amendment will ever be part of our laws.

  15. says

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME LADY!? YOU DO NOT HAVE PERSONAL OPINIONS WHEN AT WORK IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY. LIKE, HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT? WHATEVER YOU SAY WHILE ON THE JOB AND TALKING ABOUT THINGS YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN IS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, MEANING THAT YOU CAN BE SUED, ETC FOR IT.

  16. Rick says

    “I wonder how she feels when people make racist comments against Asians?”

    When are some of you people ever going to understand that racial minorities do not feel any empathy for homosexuals–they do not see us as an “oppressed” group, they do not see hostility to us as “discrimination”, they do not analogize in any way, shape, or form the issues faced by racial minorities with those faced by people of the same gender who are sexually attracted to each other.

    They are therefore not our allies and there is no legitimate reason why you should go on thinking that some day a light bulb will go off and they will decide to become our allies.

    Human sexuality is totally different from race or gender in all kinds of ways, one of which is that it is fluid and widely differentiated among different individuals…..it is not static or fixed the way race and gender are, but highly variable.

    So please, be smart and stop trying to form alliances with the wrong people and realize that there is only one way to liberate ourselves and gain full acceptance in society…..and that is to change the male culture so that men in general come to regard sex between two men as totally acceptable and even cool.

    When that happens, the opinions of women like this will not matter since she will be powerless to do anything about them.

  17. northalabama says

    how was she “betrayed”? would she have preferred others lie about her beliefs? is lying part of her “religion”?

    her opinions, which she freely made under the 1st amendment, were made public for all to freely listen. it’s freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

  18. says

    Elisa Chan is a hypocrite, trumpeting about the importance of freedom of speech while simultaneously expressing regret that anyone outside that meeting heard what she had to say. Which is it, lady?

    It doesn’t bother me much that she finds some of her constituents disgusting … what bothers me is her desire to keep that opinion a secret from voters while simultaneously allowing that opinion to influence her decisions as a public official. Disgusting.

  19. Daniel Berry, NYC says

    I think Asians are disgusting.

    I think Jews are disgusting.

    I think Chicanos are disgusting.

    I think Native Americans are disgusting.

    I think amputees are disgusting.

    I think mixed marriages are disgusting.

    How dare you think that, as a public figure, I’m accountable for my words and my bigotry?

  20. Daniel Berry, NYC says

    The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to hold public office. But as everyone knows, when you hold public office, your public and private life are held to a higher level of scrutiny.

    Deal with it.

  21. Ernst Rhoem's Ghost says

    To FENROX:

    You are wrong. You said:
    “ARE YOU KIDDING ME LADY!? YOU DO NOT HAVE PERSONAL OPINIONS WHEN AT WORK IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY.”
    No, FENROX, elected officials can express their personal opinions–indeed a legislator (which she is) MUST do so. Ever listen to the House of Representatives? Plenty of opinions are expressed. There is no law against hating people and what they do. She could have equally well said, “Plural Marriage is disgusting–those polygamous Mormons make me sick!” She can say this in her official capacity. If the voters don’t like it, they can remove her from office. You cannot criminalize the deliberative speech, especially by a councilwoman.

  22. anon says

    The 1st amendment doesn’t back up any statements per se. It’s not like you can claim your argument is true because it’s protected by the 1st amendment, so her defense is purely one of political truisms: yes, she has a right to any opinion. Now, her statement that gays are disgusting is subjective as well, so you can’t argue w/ her there, but how can she possibly apply this to any policy decision? That’s her burden.

  23. Wil says

    You can still message her directly on Facebook–or you could a few hours ago. But better yet just write to district9@sanantonio.gov, as I and a subsequent commenter suggested. Here’s what I wrote:

    “Dear Ms. Chan:

    As a native Texan, I write to express outrage at your recent sentiments about gay and lesbian people, of whom there are of course many among your constituents (and friends and family and staff, even if you don’t know it). Your “personal feelings” are outdated and of course very ironic, given your own minority status. Does the fact that the same disparaging comments are made about Asians not resonate with you? Do you understand that a leader uttering such hatred in her workplace is highly damaging, disrespectful, and contrary to the ideals of the American enterprise? No, you seem sorry only that you were caught doing it. Will you show some contrition? Resign? Do something to redeem yourself?

    And this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Spew hate all you want– but don’t do it on the public dime, or in the public’s name.

    Sincerely…”

  24. sfbob says

    An elected representative who finds some (law-abiding, tax-paying) portion of her constituency to be “disgusting” really has no business holding public office.

    It’s no more appropriate for her to find her LGBT constituents disgusting than it would be for her to find her Jewish, Latino, Catholic, left-handed, whatever constituents disgusting. This may come as news to Chan but we ARE citizens and 99% of us, just like 99% of everyone else is completely and utterly unremarkable and conventional. If she finds us disgusting because of what we may or may not do in bed with each other, she needs to reconsider how she focuses her attention. I can assure her that if she finds what we do disgusting, she’ll find the things her heterosexual constituents do disgusting as well. Which essentially means it really is none of her damned business.

  25. sfbob says

    An elected representative who finds some (law-abiding, tax-paying) portion of her constituency to be “disgusting” really has no business holding public office.

    It’s no more appropriate for her to find her LGBT constituents disgusting than it would be for her to find her Jewish, Latino, Catholic, left-handed, whatever constituents disgusting. This may come as news to Chan but we ARE citizens and 99% of us, just like 99% of everyone else is completely and utterly unremarkable and conventional. If she finds us disgusting because of what we may or may not do in bed with each other, she needs to reconsider how she focuses her attention. I can assure her that if she finds what we do disgusting, she’ll find the things her heterosexual constituents do disgusting as well. Which essentially means it really is none of her damned business.

  26. says

    I’m not sure why she brought up the 1st Amendment since no one is trying to curtail her speech. She was and is free to express her bigoted opinions 24/7, just as everyone else is free to react to them and even free to call for her resignation, if they believe she’s unfit for public office. As a councilwoman, it’s her duty to defend her views and to explain how they benefit those she serves. That’s what she should be doing, not blabbing on about a right to free speech she already has and has exercised.

    Her ethnicity is less important than her Republicanism, because she’s basically spouting the mainstream Republican view shared by the vast vast majority of her TX Republican colleagues. What TX needs is less Republicans like Chan and more Democrats like San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro.

  27. Ernst Rhoem's Ghost says

    To Daniel Berry:

    The councilwoman expressed dismay over a staff member’s act of betrayal. Presumably, one of that guy’s job requirements was silence. You state that the councilwoman should be “accountable” for her words and deeds, but that is problematic. Should she really be made to answer for what is said in PRIVATE–i.e. in a closed-door meeting with her staff? If that is right, then it is the same thing as saying that a private, “secret” staff meeting should not be allowed to exist at all. But such meetings do exist. They are an accepted part of business and government–and they always have been. Look at what just happened to Bradley Manning and whats-his-name (the other traitor).

    Seriously, would it have been “all right” to get a copy of her diary and publish anti-gay remarks she made in THAT?

  28. Kumicu says

    How was she betrayed? This was a staff meeting, and who is her boss? The people of San Antonio. They have a right to know who she really is. And therefore they have a right to listen in on a public conversation. This is not China Chan!

  29. Bernie says

    it may have been a “private” setting, but Ms. Chan is a PUBLIC official……and her insensitivity and ignorance on gays can be compared to the stereo types on Asians

  30. Bernie says

    it may have been a “private” setting, but Ms. Chan is a PUBLIC official……and her insensitivity and ignorance on gays can be compared to the stereo types on Asians

  31. Jonna the Woodswoman says

    She’s a good christian woman. The heathens are trying to silence the poor persecuted christians. Praise Jesus!! (snork)

    That’s the language in the pulpits of churches in San Antonio.

  32. Chuck Willman says

    First Amendment protected speech, huh? Okay, I respect women very much, but backwards ignorant, bigoted women should probably be in a rice paddy somewhere. How’s that? Protected? Good.

  33. says

    Big difference Ernst between a private diary and a professional staff meeting involving other people.

    Whatever her (now ex) staff member’s breach, a smart rule of thumb for politicians is to be willing and able to defend what you say in a professional capacity. She’s defending her right to free speech (which she doesn’t need to defend because obviously she has it) but hasn’t said much about the remarks which, like it or not, are now part of the public record. Of course she is perfectly free to say those remarks were intended to be private and she has no desire to address their content, and those she serves, including gay people, are free to interpret that as they will.

    Politicians who think they can hold private meetings, saying things they wouldn’t say openly, in this day are likely in for a rude awakening.

  34. Ching Chong says

    Leave it to another self-hating Asian desperate to be accepted by white people to say this nonsense. Ironic considering all of the stereotypes against them.

  35. says

    You can’t leave a comment on her Facebook page but you can send her a message thru F/B messaging, there is no guarantee she’ll read them but you can tell her that homophobia isn’t ok.

  36. Hey Darlin' says

    We are intelligent enough to realize that she is trying to diffuse a very DISGUSTING situation, she created, by becoming the victim (of WHO exactly, HERSELF)? While she’s role-playing as her own best victim, perhaps she will see how the public deserves to have their full value for their dollar and take her antiquated show elsewhere.

    If not, then perhaps the city of San Antonio should know how you feel about who they are paying with your tax dollars.

  37. Hyacinth says

    To all the racists … Seriously??? And you think you’re any different when you spew hate? Wow, let me do the same then. Please post your personal info so we can round you up and get rid of you so that we can preclude any defective genetic material from reproducing. I’m kidding of course, but please, don’t let these awful people bring out the worst in humanity. We need to stick together as a community, as we still need to fight people such as Scalia and the idiots who beat up our brothers and sisters.

  38. Hyacinth says

    “I wonder how she feels when people make racist comments against Asians?”

    When are some of you people ever going to understand that racial minorities do not feel any empathy for homosexuals–they do not see us as an “oppressed” group, they do not see hostility to us as “discrimination”, they do not analogize in any way, shape, or form the issues faced by racial minorities with those faced by people of the same gender who are sexually attracted to each other.

    They are therefore not our allies and there is no legitimate reason why you should go on thinking that some day a light bulb will go off and they will decide to become our allies.

    POSTED BY: RICK | AUG 20, 2013 12:27:51 PM”

    Hmmmmmm, please elaborate and please explain your definition of “us” and “them”, as it seems in your world, all “gays” are white males. I bet you’ve caused as much emotional damage to the LGBT community as Ms. Chan. So sad.

  39. Marc says

    Asians are disgusting and unfit to be parents.

    I’d like to see how long someone would stay in office if they said THAT in a “private” meeting.

    Chan — go away, bigot. The world suffers enough, it doesn’t need you to add to it.

  40. Leo says

    If she made these remarks about any other group..that group would work to impeach her from city council. Let’s hope we LGBT get a spine and not stand for this bull any longer. I agree. Work to get her out.

  41. JT says

    As most readers of the comments can read, we as gays are infuriated by Ms. Chan’s comments. We really need to stop mirroring the same hatred against these types or we are just like them. Let’s take the higher road and work to oust these types from their positions. We all know she would rather ignore the real reason we are upset with her by using the First Amendment as a smokescreen. It has nothing to do with the latter and everything to do with her comments. Call her on it. Email her. Email her peers on the council. I’m pretty sure we all have cell phones and several minutes to call San Antonio’s city hall and let them know we understand First Amendment rights but we are not going to put up with this kind of bigotry from anyone who holds public office. There are good people working as council(men/women)there.
    Looks like San Antonio’s number for Communications & Public Affairs is: 210 207 7234. Remain Calm!

  42. Edward says

    Ms.Chan: You are a hateful,BIGOTED, prejudiced,close minded sorry ass ,pathetic excuse of a an ELECTED politician. Oh ,I forgot, You ARE elected and can be UNELECTED! If I said” Asian women are disgusting and unfit to be parents ,I’d be prosecuted. But ,since you think you’re somehow immune due to the first amendment,keep on thinking that,you screwed up moron. When election time rolls around,hopefully your constituents will kick your sorry ass out of office. And that your words will follow you where ever you go. btw,my words are protected by the first amendment. Something that people in your ancestral land probably do not have!!!

Leave A Reply