18 November, 2008

Sweet Schadenfreude, Parte the Second


In the aftermath of the passage of Prop 8 in California, some gay rights groups are calling for boycotts of those businesses that donated money to the campaign to stop same sex marriage in that state. And suddenly, the religious rights is shocked - SHOCKED - at the notion of boycotting a business over political disagreements. Like this guy:

Some Proposition 8 supporters say a minority of protesters have gone too far by targeting individuals. Opponents of the measure have called for a boycott of the California Musical Theatre after revelations that artistic director Scott Eckern, a Mormon, donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 Campaign. Members of his church played a significant role in the campaign.

"It's disheartening that he is being singled out," said Lisa West, spokeswoman for the church in the Sacramento area. "We had hoped there would be more tolerance for different viewpoints."

Funny, I don't recall hearing anyone on the other side calling for "tolerance of different viewpoints" when the American Family Association was calling for boycotts of Ford and McDonald's because those companies dared to market to gay people.

Poor bigoted fuckwits. Sucks when we use your own tactics against you, doesn't it?


SWE said...

And the guy resigned. I kinda agree with an editorial in the Mercury News that boycotts are stupid and divisive.

A lot of the people who supported Prop 8 are scared of gay people because they think they've never met one. Of course, nobody in their right mind would be "out" in the face of someone spouting off homophobic vitriol, and so the cycle continues.

At the San Jose protest this weekend, there were so many families, persons of color, clergy and straight folks. If we all went outside of our "comfort" zone and talked to a few people who voted against marriage, I bet we'd make some real, positive changes. Can't do that if we hunker down in our own separate camps.

Cujo359 said...

Depends who we're boycotting. I think boycotting a business because one employee contributed to Prop. 8 is going overboard. What about the technical director, or the president, or its board? What were their opinions? As that editorial said, we're critical of abortion opponents who go after individuals. On the other hand, entities that generally encourage such discrimination, or that put their weight behind Prop. 8, probably ought to be targeted.

Ironic that my word verification string is "gentlist".

SWE said...

That's an excellent point, Cujo.

Raining down boycotts on organizations because of one employee isn't fair. An organization that systematically encourages bigotry, or whose leadership uses profits to further bigotry, is one that would be foolish to count on continued financial support.

I tend to think about these things on a strictly personal level, so when I see "boycott" I imagine grouchy people steering clear of one another. In order to secure civil rights for everyone, I am convinced that we're going to have to agree to talks with the raging homophobes, without preconditions. I'm not sure about the effect of a boycott on such discussions.

Cujo359 said...

Occasionally, some will try to reach some sort of agreement, while others will just become more embittered. The only certain effect is that if the boycott is successful, those organizations will have less money. Still, I think it can be a good way of making a point, if it's not overused.

I agree that the best approach is to make them realize that it's likely that they have friends or close relatives who are gay. Some won't respond to that, either.