Comments on: On Boycotts and Blacklists

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:52:51 +0000

A boycott by gay people in musical theatre is pretty much a death warrant. You could survive in some businesses, but not musical theatre.

By: Jerry Doodle

Jerry Doodle — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:21:09 +0000

Brian,
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 $$$ ($1000 or more, sometimes MUCH more in the case of Prop to a political candidate or a public effort to amend a state constitution? It seems to me that these individuals have forfeited their right to privacy, as the Supreme Court considers those donations “political speech.” Now these donors have been scrutinized, just as Joe the Plumber’s life was scrutinized once he made himself a public figure.
Yes it’s all very queasy-making, but when you put up the $$$, you take your chances.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:10:14 +0000

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.

By: Brian L

Brian L — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:59:58 +0000

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.

By: Jerry Doodle

Jerry Doodle — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:06:28 +0000

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.”

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:45:49 +0000

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.

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:39:41 +0000

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.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:05:55 +0000

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?

By: CJ

CJ — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:47:30 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:12:57 +0000

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.