Boycott - Proposition 8 protesters target businesses

[BlackAsCoal]

Activists who oppose the ban on gay marriage are boycotting businesses whose employees or owners contributed money to the Yes on 8 campaign.

More than a week after the passage of Proposition 8, activists opposed to the ban on gay marriage have shifted their protests to new arenas -- using boycotts to target businesses and individuals who contributed to the winning side.

The effect of the boycotts remains unclear. Merchants said that the overall poor economy made it difficult to tell whether their businesses were declining specifically because of the threats. But the protests have been highly visible and have drawn strong objections from backers of the initiative.

"No matter your opinion of Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process," Ron Prentice, of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement. Boycotters were "unabashedly trampling on the rights of others," he said.

Activists behind the boycott effort argue they are simply exercising their political rights.

"People are determining who their friends are, and who are not their friends," said Fred Karger, a Los Angeles resident and retired political consultant. "I think people need to be held accountable for their financial support."

The activists have pored though campaign contribution databases and then "outed" Proposition 8 donors on sites like Facebook.com and craigslist.com. "People are going to do what they want, and it's in this society where you have campaign reporting that is all public information," said Karger.

Some gay rights activists also have gone onto the restaurant website yelp.com, giving bad reviews to eateries linked to the Yes on 8 movement.

Scott Eckern, the Sacramento theater director whose political donation in support of California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage has become a lightning rod in the debate over gay rights, resigned today. He said he wanted to protect the California Musical Theatre, his artistic home since 1984from further controversy.

more at link --
Proposition 8 protesters target businesses - Los Angeles Times

From my perspective, these activists have every right to boycott those who supported the proposition .. and they have hit upon the very weapon that will get them want they want.

If you want to get something done in America, use money to get there.

 

[Sunni Man]

This is funny!!!

A bunch of limp wristed homos going on the attack!!!

 

[AVG-JOE]

This represents use of a valuable tool in the arsenal of a democratic people. Seems kind of dumb to be bringing it out after passage of the proposition though...

-Joe

 

[BlackAsCoal]

This represents use of a valuable tool in the arsenal of a democratic people. Seems kind of dumb to be bringing it out after passage of the proposition though...

-Joe

I agree .. had they said before the election that anyone who contributes will be outed and their business will suffer .. rest assured there would have been a lot of people not donating who did.

However, this issue isn't going anywhere and it will be back.

AND, when the issue hits other states, the examples set here will resonate there.

 

[Sunni Man]

AND, when the issue hits other states, the examples set here will resonate there.

Very true. People in other states have seen when they are allowed to vote. They can easily defeat the homo agenda.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup thugs and use of intimidation AFTER the fact are signs of a healthy respect of our democratic principles indeed.

So remind me, how do you feel about protests in front of abortion clinics? Of outing Doctors that preform abortions? Of boycotts on said doctors and clinics?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Yup thugs and use of intimidation AFTER the fact are signs of a healthy respect of our democratic principles indeed.

So remind me, how do you feel about protests in front of abortion clinics? Of outing Doctors that preform abortions? Of boycotts on said doctors and clinics?

Pro-UNBORN- lifers have every right to protest in front of clinics all day long and they can "boycott" these clinins if they choose .. does that mean getting their abortions somewhere else?

They do not have the right to bomb clinics anymore than Prop 8 protestors don't have the right to bomb these businesses.

I lived through the civil rights era and boycott was one of the most, if not THE most, effective weapon used.

 

[Sunni Man]

So what are homos going to boycott??

Bath houses and gay bars??

 

[Navy1960]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That is the 10th Amendment to the constitution and it is quite clear in it's meaning. No where in the constitution is there a provision for marriage, and therefor it is left to the individual states to decide what laws it will and won't apply to this issue. While it it true that states recoginze other states under intersate compact.

An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States of America. Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state" without the consent of Congress. Frequently, these agreements create a new governmental agency which is responsible for administering or improving some shared resource such as a seaport or public transportation infrastructure. In some cases, a compact serves simply as a coordination mechanism between independent authorities in the member states.

The people of the state of Ca. Az. and Fl. all decided in a process , which by the way the gay community has advocated and supported for years to pass gay friendly laws in Ca., to pass prop 8. While it's passage may be a dissapointment to the gay community in the state of Ca. the people have spoken. They have avenues to redress this issue with the courts if they wish and the legislature, however in this case, your talking of a technical issue as to the laws structure and not the law itself, while it is likley to be struck down in the state court , if it goes as far as the SCOTUS it will more than likely be upheld. The point is, in this nation, if you happen to live in an area that the will of the people that vote there provide an environment in which you do not like, then you have a choice, one ,you can seek to chage that environment by changing the minds of the voters, and I submit that making threats to businesss, assaulting old women and churches is not the way to do that. Two you can seek a redress in the court system to change it which will be long and drawn out and will not change the minds of the people you wish to change. Three and IMHO this is the best solution go to a place that suits your lifestyle and needs and provides you with an envornment that is more in line with your lifestyle rather than force that lifestyle on people who don't care for it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I agree .. had they said before the election that anyone who contributes will be outed and their business will suffer .. rest assured there would have been a lot of people not donating who did.

However, this issue isn't going anywhere and it will be back.

AND, when the issue hits other states, the examples set here will resonate there.

Agreed. Especially if it shows any measurable results in California.

-Joe

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That is the 10th Amendment to the constitution and it is quite clear in it's meaning. No where in the constitution is there a provision for marriage, and therefor it is left to the individual states to decide what laws it will and won't apply to this issue. While it it true that states recoginze other states under intersate compact.

An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States of America. Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state" without the consent of Congress. Frequently, these agreements create a new governmental agency which is responsible for administering or improving some shared resource such as a seaport or public transportation infrastructure. In some cases, a compact serves simply as a coordination mechanism between independent authorities in the member states.

The people of the state of Ca. Az. and Fl. all decided in a process , which by the way the gay community has advocated and supported for years to pass gay friendly laws in Ca., to pass prop 8. While it's passage may be a dissapointment to the gay community in the state of Ca. the people have spoken. They have avenues to redress this issue with the courts if they wish and the legislature, however in this case, your talking of a technical issue as to the laws structure and not the law itself, while it is likley to be struck down in the state court , if it goes as far as the SCOTUS it will more than likely be upheld. The point is, in this nation, if you happen to live in an area that the will of the people that vote there provide an environment in which you do not like, then you have a choice, one ,you can seek to chage that environment by changing the minds of the voters, and I submit that making threats to businesss, assaulting old women and churches is not the way to do that. Two you can seek a redress in the court system to change it which will be long and drawn out and will not change the minds of the people you wish to change. Three and IMHO this is the best solution go to a place that suits your lifestyle and needs and provides you with an envornment that is more in line with your lifestyle rather than force that lifestyle on people who don't care for it.

There is one other option you left out good brother .. citizens can work to change any laws they deem to be an injustice. That is as American as the right to vote.

Just getting up and moving out is a. sometimes not possible, particularly in these times of uncertainty .. and b. sometimes is simply the coward's way out. Standing on what you believe is not a path for weak people.

Boycott is an effective way of addressing hard issues in America and it worked so well that the courts you speak of, moved to remove boycotts asa weapon.

Additionally, there is something that is VERY clear and VERY undeniable here and that is gays are going to be allowed to marry in California at some point real soon. That is an undeniable truth.

Just a few short years ago, the Knight Initiative, legislation similar to Prop 8, passed by 62% .. Prop 8 passed by 52% .. and this issue or gays aren't going anywhere. Boycotts, which were not employed after the Knight Initiative, are going to make a huge difference with already struggling businesses.

This story only ends one way.

 

[Ravi]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What about this bit. It seems to me if you are allowing one group special privileges you can't deny them to another group. A state cannot make a law that denies someone their constitutional rights as citizens of the USA.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

 

[BlackAsCoal]

What about this bit. It seems to me if you are allowing one group special privileges you can't deny them to another group. A state cannot make a law that denies someone their constitutional rights as citizens of the USA.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Good point

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yup thugs and use of intimidation AFTER the fact are signs of a healthy respect of our democratic principles indeed.

So remind me, how do you feel about protests in front of abortion clinics? Of outing Doctors that preform abortions? Of boycotts on said doctors and clinics?

Boycott of the abortion industry by pro-lifers seems like a given, which only leaves peaceful protest. An action I for one support 100%. Publishing lists of doctors and clinics that perform abortions is a very valid form of democratic protest. As is publishing lists of companies that damage the environment or sell arms.

I think your use of the phrase "thugs and intimidation" is political bullshit spin - nowhere in the original article was there any indication of coercion or intimidation.

-Joe

 

[jillian]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

No. They are NOT clear in meaning. They must be taken in conjunction with precedent because we are modeled on British common law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. (Loving v Virginia). You cannot abridge a fundamental right without an incredibly good reason.... specifically to keep individual rights from being curtailed by people just because they don't approve of the right or the people receiving it.

 

[Navy1960]

What about this bit. It seems to me if you are allowing one group special privileges you can't deny them to another group. A state cannot make a law that denies someone their constitutional rights as citizens of the USA.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Any man or woman can marry in the state of California at anytime Ravi so how are any rights being abridged? More so that depends on if you consider the gay community a minority that is subject to that status which I clearly do not. Each and every person within the gay community enjoys rights under the constitution that any other American enjoys, the lifestyle they choose to live places them in the status they are in and therefor that choice precludes them from acting upon privliedges that they clearly can exercise at anytime should they so choose.

 

[jillian]

Boycott of the abortion industry by pro-lifers seems like a given, which only leaves peaceful protest. An action I for one support 100%. Publishing lists of doctors and clinics that perform abortions is a very valid form of democratic protest. As is publishing lists of companies that damage the environment or sell arms.

I think your use of the phrase "thugs and intimidation" is political bullshit spin - nowhere in the original article was there any indication of coercion or intimidation.

-Joe

It's irrelevant anyway.

Ask him how he felt about boycotting the Dixie Chicks because they made Bush feel bad.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No. They are NOT clear in meaning. They must be taken in conjunction with precedent because we are modeled on British common law.

Marriage is a fundamental right. (Loving v Virginia). You cannot abridge a fundamental right without an incredibly good reason.... specifically to keep individual rights from being curtailed by people just because they don't approve of the right or the people receiving it.

Precedent you say? You mean like the fact for the 200 plus years we have been a country marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a Man and a woman?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

It's irrelevant anyway.

Ask him how he felt about boycotting the Dixie Chicks because they made Bush feel bad.

Good point

 

[Navy1960]

There is one other option you left out good brother .. citizens can work to change any laws they deem to be an injustice. That is as American as the right to vote.

Just getting up and moving out is a. sometimes not possible, particularly in these times of uncertainty .. and b. sometimes is simply the coward's way out. Standing on what you believe is not a path for weak people.

Boycott is an effective way of addressing hard issues in America and it worked so well that the courts you speak of, moved to remove boycotts asa weapon.

Additionally, there is something that is VERY clear and VERY undeniable here and that is gays are going to be allowed to marry in California at some point real soon. That is an undeniable truth.

Just a few short years ago, the Knight Initiative, legislation similar to Prop 8, passed by 62% .. Prop 8 passed by 52% .. and this issue or gays aren't going anywhere. Boycotts, which were not employed after the Knight Initiative, are going to make a huge difference with already struggling businesses.

This story only ends one way.

BaC I believe that offered three different approaches on this issue that can be followed and IMHO the third one is the easiest. However, my contention is that this issue is such a divissive one that in order to sway voters minds which I submit to you will have to be done eventually, the one way to do that is not to attack them but rather to educate them. While boycott is a form of protest that is tried and true your correct, in this case I submit it will do nothing but entrench opposing sides in this issue.