As I have shown in a previous posting, the PSFC is a territory that is free from the First Amendment: speech that is “racist, sexist, homophobic or nasty” is punishable by banishment from the Coop. (Did you think that the PSFC is about food rather than righteous thinking ? You were wrong.)
Now here is a hypothetical little drama played out on one of the long waiting lines of the Coop.
Dramatis personae: 1) Ms. L. Proud member of all progressive caucuses in all neighborhood groups; spokesperson for LGBT committees; pro-choice; generally anti-Establishment. 2) Mrs. R. High-church Episcopalian; pro-life; life-long Republican.
Both are members of PSFC, but have, shall we say, little disagreements with one another on non-food matters. On this hypothetical day they found themselves together as “linewaiters” at the Coop and fell into conversation. Their discussion was spirited, others joined in, and there was a bit of a hubub. In the aftermath it was the consensus of the bystanders that one of the two ladies would have to be expelled from the organization. The group, it was generally agreed, is just not big enough to contain both L. and R.
The charges leveled against Ms. L were the following: sacrilege, blasphemy, profanity, and irreverence. The charges against Mrs. R were racism, sexism, homophobia, and nastiness.
So, applying PSFC rules, who will be out ? Who can remain in ? A Hearing Officer (who is also a proud member of the National Lawyers Guild) will be assigned and will no doubt apply the rules with neither fear nor favor.