Shunning businesses is one thing; intimidation crosses the line.

[cboy4]

More preaching from straight editorial pages



December 10, 2008

Gays and lesbians -- at least some of them -- plan to refrain from working and shopping today as an expression of their dismay over Proposition 8, the Nov. 4 measure that banned same-sex marriage, and as a showing of both their economic clout and their place within the larger community. If organizers carry it off, this is exactly the kind of tactic that can make a difference, though its impact might have been bigger before election day.

For all the complaints (mainly coming from the Yes-on-8 campaign), boycotts against corporations or organizations are a time-honored method of expressing opinions and pushing for social or political change. But in the superheated Proposition 8 debate, this venerable tactic has occasionally been used in ugly ways.

It started when the directors of the Yes-on-8 campaign sent letters to various companies that had donated to the opposition camp. The missives warned donors to pay an equal amount to the "Yes" side or risk being publicly outed as opponents of "traditional marriage" (the implication being that they would then face a boycott). The tactic looked and quacked a lot like extortion. It's one thing to boycott, or threaten it; a demand for hush money goes over the line.

Since then, postelection boycott efforts by the other side -- defenders of same-sex marriage -- have expanded into a vengeful campaign against individuals who donated to the gay-marriage ban, usually in the form of pressure on their employers. At least two people have resigned from their jobs and a third is considering it, including the artistic director of a stage company in Sacramento and a manager at an L.A. eatery.

As much as we abhorred Proposition 8, there's nothing to cheer about when private individuals are afraid to donate to the political campaigns of their choice because it may cost them their livelihood. In the case of Scott Eckern, who resigned from the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, the future of the nonprofit company was at stake after some artists refused to work with him. But what if that situation were reversed and Eckern were targeted because he opposed Proposition 8? Or because he was gay? Professionals have to look past their personal and political differences or everyone with an opinion will be on an official list of undesirables.

The line between boycott and blacklist can be imprecise. Owners and officers of companies aren't just private individuals; they must accept that their political actions will reflect on the organizations they head and act accordingly. But a heated debate about a basic right -- in this case, the right to marry whom one chooses -- must also consider the rights of citizens to vote and donate without intimidation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-boycott10-2008dec10,0,2703213.story

Actions Have Consequences

[cboy4]

1. It's sad when the editorial pages transform the haters into

victims.

No wait. It's pathetic. :puke:

[LostinVA]

2. Those poor bullied and discriminated upon straight bigots

Preyed upon by the All Powerful Gays.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. California Musical Theater

does not have the standing to lure talent to work with bigots. Mr Eckern knew what he was doing would be artistic suicide. He did it, no one else. You can not make talent work with bigots. Eckern is not of the talent level that might lead people to put up with his personal hatereds. He's an administrator in a company driven by artistic talent. It wass his job to attact that talent. He rendered himself unable to deliver on his number one task- bringing in the talented people who fill the seats in Sacramento.
Theater work is intense and low paying, and no one worth a damn will work with people that hold known bigotry toward them. Who would? Who would want a boss that is openly organizing against your sucess in life? Who would walk out on a stage controlled by a person who sees you as less than human? To do so not only risks artistic embarassment, but it is also dangerous physically. To work on a stage, you have to trust the people who run that house and that stage with life and limb.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. was he physically threatened? if not, it is OUR RIGHTFUL expression of our first amendment rights

[Zuiderelle]

5. Oh please. And on that note, I'm taking the afternoon off for "Day without Gay"

[donco6]

6. This makes no sense at all:

"As much as we abhorred Proposition 8, there's nothing to cheer about when private individuals are afraid to donate to the political campaigns of their choice because it may cost them their livelihood."

So, we are commanded to do nothing when people who earn a livelihood off of our backs turn around and stab us in the back? That's just utter bullshit.

[bluedawg12]

9. The LA Times is owned by the Chicago Tribune (repuglican)

In 2004, the Tribune endorsed President Bush for re-election, a decision consistent with its longstanding support for the Republican Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune

[WillParkinson]

7. So...

Are they saying it's acceptable to vote on rights?

[bluedawg12]

8. Political donations are made public and published by officials for a reason

if individuals donated against the rights of their fellow human beings then, that fact that vote brings consequences.

Calling an economic boycott is not a blacklist. It is an economic tool used by the right wing to exert their political pressure.

As far as individuals, if some have quite their jobs because of grass roots complaints from citizens then they should have considered their anti-civil rights vote if they worked in jobs or industry that was gay dependent for business.

>>But what if that situation were reversed and Eckern were targeted because he opposed Proposition 8? Or because he was gay?<<

What if?? That "if" would be living in Oklahoma, or Georgia, or Kansas or any number of States where being gay, is actively discriminated against.

[bluedawg12]

10. The religious right has used boycott to fight against civil rights, where was the outrage?

The religious right has used boycott as tactic, where was the outrage?

A quick search shows on page one that mjaor corporations were intimidated and threatened:

"Ford Pulls Some Ads From Gay Press. Move Follows Boycott By a Religious Group

BOYCOTT OF WALT DISNEY: BY THE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS ...

Under God: McDonald's Yields to Anti-Gay Boycott"
...........

Blacklists, a reference to McCarthyism, was based on rumors, innuendo, secret tips and the victims were denied due process and the existence of such lists were often denied and kept secret.

The gay business boycott is nothing like the McCarth era blacklist and saying so is just a rw slur against gay activism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Blacklists

>>This open capitulation to the attitudes of McCarthyism marked the beginning of the Hollywood blacklist. In spite of the fact that hundreds would be denied employment, the studios, producers and other employers did not publicly admit that a blacklist existed.

At this time, private loyalty-review boards and anti-communist investigators began to appear to fill a growing demand among certain industries to certify that their employees were above reproach. Companies that were concerned about the sensitivity of their business, or who, like the entertainment industry, felt particularly vulnerable to public opinion made use of these private services. For a fee, these teams would investigate employees and question them about their politics and affiliations. At such hearings, the subject would usually not have a right to the presence of an attorney, and as with HUAC, the interviewee might be asked to defend himself against accusations without being allowed to cross-examine the accuser. These agencies would keep cross-referenced lists of leftist organizations, publications, rallies, charities and the like, as well as lists of individuals who were known or suspected communists. Books such as Red Channels and newsletters such as Counterattack and Confidential Information were published to keep track of communist and leftist organizations and individuals.<31> Insofar as the various blacklists of McCarthyism were actual physical lists, they were created and maintained by these private organizations.<<

[GodlessBiker]

11. I'm sure the paper had the same response with prohibitions on inter-racial marriages.

"Let's not be too difficult on those who would deny people of different races the right to marry."

:sarcasm:

[closeupready]

12. Disagree with almost this entire editorial.

Except the part about "extorting hush money", which, even that is a debatable characterization of what they are describing, but does seem a bit extreme.

[Jamastiene]

13. Oh, so they are "intimidated" by our lack of presence now, eh?

Well, there's plenty less where that came from.

God, they gripe my ass with their cries of "persecution" and "intimidation." What.Fucking.Cowards. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

18. They keep thinking they are entitled to our spending power.

They're not.

[mitchtv]

14. Fuck them

I'm going without French bread tonite (I don't work, and barely buy anything but groceries).

[readmoreoften]

15. They're lucky there wasn't White Night/Stonewall/Compton's Cafeteria: the Sequel.

The next time a gang of gays beat a straight person to death for their gender presentation, give me a call and I'll denounce it. Until then, fuck off LA Times.

[AntiFascist]

16. Ironically, the publisher of the LA Times is declaring bankruptcy...

serves them right for publishing a series of disappointing, ill-informed editorials regarding Prop. 8. I wouldn't call for a boycott, though, because the positives of the LA Times offset the negatives.

[bluedawg12]

17. Yup, they say the inter net is the death or news print media

Great! The inter net flow of information gives voice to grass roots activism and the truth comes out sooner than later.

[nomorenomore08]

19. So misguided (the editor, not you)... I'd even say downright ignorant.

Has there been vandalism at Mormon temples, intimidation of Prop. 8 supporters? I'm sure there has, by somebody somewhere. Does that point to a larger problem? I don't think so. And people like this editorial writer, whether they realize it or not, are unfairly tarring political activists with a broad brush.

Besides, considering what Prop. 8 is and what it does, I'll say a bit of "eye-for-an-eye" would be justified anyway - not actual violence, of course, just something that sends the message that stripping people of rights is not acceptable. A lot of homophobic assholes out there love to preach about "tolerance, but not approval" - well, what's wrong with throwing a little social disapproval back at them?