On Boycotts and Blacklists
There is a website called AntiGayBlacklist.com, which lists organizations and individuals (and those individuals’ employers and cities) who donated $1000 or more to the campaign in favor of Proposition 8. By law, this information is a matter of public record (although public record does not always equal “publicized”). This is not the first time pro-gay marriage advocates have used this tactic to intimidate supporters of a traditional definition of marriage. In 2005, a gay activist couple created a web site listing the name and address of anyone signing a petition to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts.
One such person listed on the California blacklist is Scott Eckern, the (former) artistic director of the California Musical Theatre. A 25-year employee of the CMT, Eckern believed that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved, although he also supports legal recognition of domestic partnerships. After Eckern’s name was found on the blacklist, the CMT was inundated with emails and calls for a boycott of the theatre by gay and lesbian artists.
Before the theatre could come to a decision on what action to take vis-a-vis Mr. Eckern, he tendered his resignation, stating his desire “to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community.”
There can be no question that the publishers of AntiGayBlacklist are doing nothing illegal. But is it ethical? And is it any different from the myriad calls for boycotts which are issued regularly by interest groups across the political spectrum?
Conservative Christian groups regularly call for boycotts of companies which advertise on TV shows, etc., which they find objectionable, or otherwise lend support to causes they oppose. Conservatives also have threatened to boycott entertainers who publicly express disdain for their leaders or policies (c.f. the Dixie Chicks).
But when a company advertises on a TV show, it is effectively supporting the content of the show with its advertising budget (some broadcasts make this even more explicit with announcements that the show is “brought to you by…”). When an entertainer makes a political comment during a performance, or in an interview, they are (wittingly or not) placing the weight of their influence behind that comment.
Scott Eckern, on the other hand, made a private choice to support a political cause. He did not use his position at the theatre to further that cause. For activists to threaten a boycott to pressure his employer to dismiss him for his personal political choices is unethical and anti-democratic. (And it’s certainly not “tolerant.”)
38 Responses to “On Boycotts and Blacklists”
‘Intimidate’ is your word; we could also say that gay people were ‘intimidated’ by the passage of Prop 8 itself. Why would a gay person want to give a business their money and/or effort so that they can put money in the pocket of someone who’s then going to donate a nice chunk of that to an anti-gay cause? Surely there is no legitimate criticism of a gay person boycotting once they find out this information; is your criticism just of the information being so easily available and people are encouraged to boycott them? Does the equation change if we trot out the inevitable racist comparison?
“the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved, although he also supports legal recognition of domestic partnerships.”
It’d be interesting to know exactly what he views as the difference between these two, and what exactly he was voting to ban; I followed the links but didn’t see any explanation. What rights do married people have that anti-gay-marriage advocates think should not be granted to gays who enter into a domestic partnership?
“If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms — never! never! never!
Gays digging into people personal lives and outing them. I’m sure there is a joke in there somewhere.
Maybe courts shouldn’t rewrite a 3000 year old settled definition of marriage and then tell people that they really didn’t understand it to begin with.
FYI. Nobodys rights have been abridged. A gay man can marry a gay woman just as legally as any man marrying any women (provided above age of consent, and not direct blood line (oddly enough, nobody talks about those relationships)).
Reminds one of the Hollywood Ten, doesn’t it.
Your assertion that Scott Eckern made a “private choice” seems off the mark. His donation is, by law, a matter of public record. With it, he intended to influence a very public and controversial matter. He is left to deal with the consequences of his public choice.
John,
How many times have we re-written the definition of marriage? Every time we suggest expanding marriage to be more inclusive, opponents say we’re changing something vital. Mixed race marriage, no longer treating women as chattel, ending the dowry, ending polygamy; the argument you raise is no different than the arguments opponents of each of those changes to the “traditional” definition of marriage.
In any case, I need to know something. Will you divorce your wife if two guys get married? Will you love her less if you women marry? Will you value your family less? What is the consequence to you?
What would gay marriage despoil, exactly? (It seems like your energy would be better spent battling the rampant divorce rates in this country, rather than battling couples who love each other and are asking the government to recognize their commitment).
correction:
“Will you love her less if you women marry?” should read “Will you love her less if two women marry?”
Apologies for any confusion.
Michael,
Thank you for admitting that the definition was changed by the courts. If the definition had be expanded by the community thru the ballot then I don’t think most people would have had an issue. It was not. Frankly, loving marriage or not, (stupid strawman arguement, why not just outlaw divorce, it makes about as much sense)I dont care, why do people need the state to validate their union, anyway? If they truly love each other then it shouldn’t matter. Right? This is a change to a definiton, courts ruled that: no, it was not a change, that this “right” existed under current law, it did not, it never has, it is a change. Personally, I dont care, other that my original point that no persons rights have been abridged. A gay man can marry a gay woman just as legally as any man marrying any women, (as is current law).
This seems to only make sense if you mistakenly think that ‘rights’ are only those things granted by the government. Did blacks all of a sudden gain certain rights after the Emancipation Proclamation or were the rights that blacks had all along no longer abridged?
Spartan: It would depend on whether the “rights” were “human rights” or “civil rights”. One type of rights are given by law, the other is given by the Creator (or so the argument says).
Paul, does the US Constitution then refer to human or civil rights? We aren’t granted the freedom of speech by the government, the government is restricted from abridging that right that we already retain. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that we retain all rights and the liberty to do pretty much anything we want (within the limits of other people’s liberty) unless the government has abridged it.
John, I don’t think the issue is technically that gays want the state to ‘validate’ their union; they just want all the spousal rights that automatically come with heterosexual marriage. Thus my question about specifically what anti-gay-marriage advocates who nevertheless don’t have an issue with domestic partnerships or civil unions want to ban gay couples from doing.
Spartan wrote:
Why would a gay person want to give a business their money and/or effort so that they can put money in the pocket of someone who’s then going to donate a nice chunk of that to an anti-gay cause?
Mr. Eckern was paid to do his job as artistic director of the theater. What he does with the wages he has duly earned is his own business (so long as he’s not breaking the law), and has nothing to do with the theater.
Surely no one wants to see this sort of scenario repeated at every small business which has an employee whose political beliefs are different from most of the business’ clients, e.g. a hardware store in a red state with an employee who donated to Obama, or a car dealership in Utah with an employee who donated to a gay rights group? Luckily, most people realize that this kind of political witch hunting is ethically wrong.
And to Kelly, who argues that Eckern’s donation was a public act because donations are public record, what about attending a political rally? Is it OK if people start publishing names of people seen at rallies, so that people can boycott their employers?
“I saw Goody Smith at the Obama Rally!” “I saw Goody Jones at the “No on Prop 8 rally!”
No, this kind of thing is chilling to the idea of democratic participation, and it ought not be done.
Apparently you are wrong about that, and it is everyone’s business who donates more than a grand to political causes.
I should have been more specific about who you feel is ‘ethically’ wrong in this scenario (leaving aside the ethics of people who support this ban in the first place). Is it the law that is wrong and people who donate to political causes should not be published? Is it the website owner who republished this information and encouraged people to boycott the businesses? Is it the gay person who does boycott based on this information (this seems absurd)?
I can’t help feeling that if I change the scenario a bit and talk about abortion providers or white power advocates that your feeling about the ‘ethics’ of what seem to be rational responses to other people’s speech would change, but I don’t know who you think is being unethical in this scenario to determine that.
Could someone explain to me why the boycotts used by the civil rights movement in the 60’s are held up as an example of successful peaceful protest that changed America and the same tactic when used by gay people is villified?
Spartan,
Let me make it crystal clear for you. Anyone who is trying to harm the business or employment of another person because of their personal political choices (e.g. they did not make their job part of that political activity) has crossed the line into unethical behavior. In this case, that would include both the publisher of the web site who made the information available for the express purpose of encouraging boycotts, and any person who heeds the call for such a boycott.
If the donation was not made from business funds, it is a private matter and threatening someone’s livelihood for their political beliefs is undemocratic. The only exception I could see would be if there were a very large, successful privately-owned business, and the owner donated a very large amount of money which was far beyond what an average citizen could afford (say, $100K or more). Then you could argue that the profit from that business enabled that person to exert a disproportionate influence on the political process. But the case of Mr. Eckern is nowhere near that kind of situation.
dezboy,
Simple–the civil rights movement boycotted businesses which were themselves upholding segregationist policies. They did not go to a small business which employed a person who favored segregation and say “Even though your business itself does not discriminate, we will not patronize your business as long as you employ that person.”
Boycotts don’t bother me as much as hurling racial epithets at black Prop 8 supporters.
As for blacklists…dang, I have to get ready for work. Later.
I entirely disagree that ‘any person who heeds’ the boycott is doing something unethical. If a black man walks past a white power/neo nazi rally and sees the manager of the hardware store that he and many of his black friends frequent marching, he’s supposed to continue his patronage of that store out of some ethical duty to democracy, and he’s bound not to notify his friends? How absurd. I would say it’s the black person’s ethical duty to not give that hardware store it’s business and put money in the pocket of someone who is actively working for such a repugnant cause specifically against him. In the case of Eckern, the boycotters did the theater a favor by indicating exactly why they were no longer going to give the theater it’s business so they could correct it and stay in business. Would you really continue to go to your church if you found out your pastor held extreme pro-abortion positions and rallied for such because it’s the ‘ethical’ thing to do, assuming he doesn’t acknowledge that he is a pastor when he does it
That’s the price you pay for being able to say what you want in society; instead of having the govt outlaw certain opinions, shunning is the entirely appopriate response and it’s got nothing to do with ‘ethics’.
Do what you want in your free time, but do NOT make me pay for it (tax breaks, health insurance, etc.) by making gay marriage legal.
Is what the anti-gay marriage side did ethical?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/23/state/n145556D05.DTL&tsp=1
Spartan,
You ask an interesting question. There is no reference in the Constitution to “human rights”, and only a limited reference to the word “rights” at all. Judging by context only, I would say that the constitution does not recognize human rights whatsoever.
Of course, this conflicts greatly with the Declaration of Independence (written by mostly the same people as the Constitution), which explicitly talks about the human rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness”. Perhaps those were the only “human rights” of popular belief at the time? Either that, or it is possible that Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin and all of the other American “revolutionaries” had a much more expansive view of the word “rights” than these same people held after they won the war and experienced a failed “Articles of Confederation” that was heavy on rights and light on centralized powers.
So, to go back to your original question… if the only human rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness” I would interpret the right to marry (which is a human creation) as a “civil right”, and not a “human right” under anything but the most expansive definition of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
the system is set up to make it hard to anonymously support a political cause with money for a reason! the light of day is a wonderful thing!
This really is a ridiculous article, there is absolutely no merit in supporting someone out of “ethical democracy” when the democracy is unethical. And Alan K. Henderson hits the nail on the head. He makes a point you really can’t argue.
“If a black man walks past a white power/neo nazi rally and sees the manager of the hardware store that he and many of his black friends frequent marching, he’s supposed to continue his patronage of that store out of some ethical duty to democracy, and he’s bound not to notify his friends? How absurd. I would say it’s the black person’s ethical duty to not give that hardware store it’s business and put money in the pocket of someone who is actively working for such a repugnant cause specifically against him.”
And Spartan, with :
“Just tell me how two men or two women committing themselves to marriage affects your life? Just tell me. I am in love now, and if I were told I would never be allowed to marry my girlfriend because it offended someone’s sense of sexual propriety (as Ed Brayton put it), I would be outraged, and I would fight to the end of the world for my rights.”
I think this is something that any sane non-religous zealot heterosexual can agree with.
CORRECTION: Oops. I quoted the wrong people. Spartan was the author of the first quote and Chuck was the author of the second.
Spartan,
I think the proper response to someone who supports a cause you oppose–even a cause that you and I can both agree is repugnant–is not to bully them by trying to get them fired from their job. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and the only thing you’ll be doing is making them (and their friends) more angry and more radical in their beliefs. The right thing to do is to tell them why you disagree with them.
And by all means, if you have a friend who holds views that are repugnant to you, cut off contact with them until such time as their views change. That’s what shunning someone means, not threatening to take away their livelihood.
Vincent,
I have a question for you. If these same tactics were used against a person who supported gay rights–let’s say a person working for a Christian bookstore is forced to resign after it is revealed that she donated to a pro-gay cause–would you say that the people who threatened to boycott the bookstore weren’t doing anything unethical–even though you disagreed with their viewpoint?
Eric, I guess I disagree that this is bullying or that the boycotting people are doing anything ‘wrong’; withholding your business is not bullying as no one is under any obligation to do business with anyone for any reason. Would you rather the person just boycott the business but not indicate why so that the person is not fired? What is the realistic alternative (and I can’t say that I have an easy answer to it) for the gay person once they find out that someone has beliefs they find extremely repugnant? Unfortunately in this scenario, it would seem that the only recourse is for you to take the position that the gay person should still go to the theater and ignore that they are participating in the financial enrichment of an anti-gay advocate; in other words, don’t express their own free speech. I certainly don’t think it’s fair to put the onus on the boycotter to not express their speech via their patronage or lack thereof.
In all fairness I am sympathetic to your main point, which I believe is the impact of these actions on democracy, and taken to the extreme I agree that it could have a chilling effect. I guess at this point though, if democracy or duly contemplated free speech must suffer, I’ll let democracy slip.
Let’s “de-technology” this for a minute.
If I told every single person I know that Joe Blow does not support gay marriage and supported the prohibition against gay marriage, have I done anything unethical? I think not. Then why is it unethical to post the same information on the internet? I don’t think it is.
I consider this behavior to be “overzealous” because the consequences of the belief do not warrant the returned behavior. It’s sort of like beating someone up because they stare at you, or punching someone because they insulted your mother (I have some great mother jokes to insert here but will refrain).
Wow, my post was worded poorly. Just to be clear…
I draw a distinction between “unethical” and “overzealous”, and I find this particular behavior “overzealous” in the extreme. It’s certainly not very “gentlemanly” and is more like political terrorism than anything else.
I think people should be more outraged that the government of the United States encroaches upon their religious freedoms through conflating the religious aspect of marriage with the civil aspect of marriage.
Conflating the religious foundations of marriage with the rights that are granted to a couple by the government is ridiculous. It is insulting to both that they are bound by the other in the discourse of our nation.
Boycotts are temporary measures. Their message is “Stop doing this, or we won’t buy your stuff.” But this anti-Prop-8 blacklist seeks permanent economic damage on individuals – CPAs, dentists, pharmacists, etc. – who made a one-time donation; “You did this one thing, you must be permanently cut off from economic society.”
Let’s say my dentist neighbor donates $1,000 to some Naderite/Buchananite group that’s lobbying for vast protectionist legislation that (naturally) would do great harm to both foreign and domestic economies. Would it be right for me to tell everybody that he should lose his customer base forever because he’s dead wrong on this one issue? And how amenable would he be to trust anti-protectionists or to listen to anti-protectionist arguments?
It’s people’s personal choice how to spend or not spend their money. Trying to argue against people’s ability to freely patronize whichever businesses they so choose seems much more socialistic than a slightly higher marginal tax rate for the top 2% of earners, at least to me.
I don’t know if this activity is “unethical,” but on its face it appears ickily (if that’s a word) close to a private form of fascism. You disagree with us on a issue? Well, change your mind or lose your job!
If the employee does the former, I don’t think he really changed his mind. He wasn’t persuaded from his point of view; he just did so out of fear. If it’s the latter, then the support/oppose balance for Prop. 9 still stands. In both cases, the gay rights movement won no supporters, except for maybe intimidating people from giving money to a cause.
As for the question more generally, I would like to take aim at this comment.
“This seems to only make sense if you mistakenly think that ‘rights’ are only those things granted by the government. Did blacks all of a sudden gain certain rights after the Emancipation Proclamation or were the rights that blacks had all along no longer abridged?”
Under the guise of “rights,” this comment essentially says that judges should be given dictatorial powers to bypass the law. Given your reasoning, it is possible to have a 3-member court where two of the justices are NAMBLA members who rule 10-year-old should be free to have relationships with adults.
I am NOT saying gay marriage is anywhere in the same ball park as child molestation. I am saying that giving judges broad power to declare “rights” could, in theory, lead to such a ruling.
Of course blacks should have had rights all along, but they won the right to vote through the constitution, the law and convincing people of their cause. Yielding to democratic law in the end shows we do not have some third-world oligarchy controlling the country. The country does not respond to the whims and points of view of a few people. Judges ruling for gay marriage could translate later to judges ruling against a democratic gay marriage law. We must put the US constitution and democracy first.
It looks to me like AntiGayBlacklist.com is responding in kind to the pro-Proposition 8 group, ProtectMarriage.com:
The Associated Press reported that on October 22, a contributor who had raised money to oppose Proposition 8 received a letter from ProtectMarriage.com. The letter stated that “Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a contribution of at least $10,000…” from the contributor.] The letter stated that “many more of your clients support traditional marriage than support same sex marriage,” requested that the contributor withdraw its support of Equality California,” and requested a donation “of like amount to ProtectMarriage.com.”
The letter also stated:
“Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.”
Jerry – you are talking about a separate issue, which Eric has already clarified. There is a difference between a company using its company resources to take a political stand and a single worker within that company taking a non-company related political stand.
Spartan wrote:
…withholding your business is not bullying as no one is under any obligation to do business with anyone for any reason. Would you rather the person just boycott the business but not indicate why so that the person is not fired?
In a word–yes. If a person is so outraged by the personal political activity of an employee of a business that they feel they can’t patronize that business, that’s their prerogative, but they have no right (morally speaking, not legally) to pressure the business to fire that employee.
In all fairness I am sympathetic to your main point…
Thank you. And for my part, I understand the outrage being felt by gay rights activists, and their anger and desire to retaliate against those who supported Prop 8. It’s a natural human response. But I think the right thing to do is try to realize that what people do in their personal time and with their duly-earned wages is a personal matter, and their jobs should not be threatened because of it. I think that over time, cooler heads will prevail. Perhaps the CMT will even offer Mr. Eckern his job back.
Brian,
to a political candidate or a public effort to amend a state constitution? It seems to me that these individuals have forfeited their right to privacy, as the Supreme Court considers those donations “political speech.” Now these donors have been scrutinized, just as Joe the Plumber’s life was scrutinized once he made himself a public figure.
Thank you, but I do understand the difference between attempted extortion and what AntiGayBlacklist.com is up to. I specifically used the term “in kind” to indicate a “similar manner.”
All
What should a private adult individual expect to happen when (s)he donates a fairly large amount of $$$ ($1000 or more, sometimes MUCH more in the case of Prop
Yes it’s all very queasy-making, but when you put up the $$$, you take your chances.
A boycott by gay people in musical theatre is pretty much a death warrant. You could survive in some businesses, but not musical theatre.