Wednesday, December 17, 2008

What if gay marriage opponents boycotted businesses with gay employees?

The defense by gay activists of their McCarthyite tactics continues with this post from Timothy Kincaid. Kincaid responds to Maggie Gallagher by saying that boycotting a business with the purpose of getting an employee fired is not only not new, but perfectly acceptable.

Not new? Neither is anti-gay violence, but don't expect Kincaid to be defending it any time soon.

And acceptable? I wonder what Kinkaid would say if opponents of same-sex marriage began boycotting businesses who have gay employees with the obvious intent of getting them fired?

9 comments:

Art said...

LOL.

Good luck getting by without companies that "support the gay agenda", let alone those that employ gays (that would be just about every business that employs more than 20 or so people).

Lists of the businesses Martin should avoid may be found here and here.

One upside - the lines at Disney World may get shorter. (OOPS! Gay bashers have tried that. Epic FAIL! Drat.)

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

I'm sure the businesses in California that house people who supported Prop 8 are just as unavoidable as the ones you mention.

But of course my whole point was that what Kincaid was saying was acceptable was just as unacceptable as boycotting a company with gay workers.

Should I put you down as disagreeing with the gay blacklists?

One Brow said...

One of the points of the essay was that the woman was not just an empolyee, but a public spokesperson and active manager in the company.

As for whether the pro-Prop-8 should boycott the businesses of those who contributed to defeating Prop 8, they have every right to do so, and I support that expression of their position.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow:

So you would have no problem with conservatives boycotting a company in which a gay served as a spokesperson and active manager of the boycotted company simply because they serve in that capacity?

One Brow said...

Martin,

Last I heard, this was a free country. People can organize whatever boycotts they want.

Of course, you should abvoid conflating "a gay person works there" with the more appropriate analogy of "a person who contributes to gay political cuases works there", which is a much closer case. However, you certainly have teh right to do either one, and good luck with that.

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow,

So if Proposition 8 had never happened and instead some conservative group had launched a boycott of companies with employees who contributed to gay causes with the intention of getting those employees fired, your response would be, "It's a free country"?

I'm sorry I find that hard to believe.

One Brow said...

So if Proposition 8 had never happened

A better example would be if it had failed, but OK.

and instead some conservative group had launched a boycott of companies with employees

Again, a more comparable example is with people involed in owning and running the business, as opposed to generic employees, but OK.

who contributed to gay causes with the intention of getting those employees fired, your response would be, "It's a free country"?

Yes, even in your scenario. Racial bigots have every right to boycott whatever company they choose for whatever reason they choose, I see no reason to prevent homophobes/defenders of marriage from exercising the same rights. Forbidding a boycott, or even a blacklist of companies to boycott, would be an unacceptable impingement on free speech. I might personally disapprove, but that does not change the my support for the right of people to engage in conduct I disapprove of.

I'm sorry I find that hard to believe.

Perhaps. Do you recall anything from my commenting this blog, or anywhere else, that indicates otherwise? Not personal disapproval, but statements that groups should not have the right to do so?

Martin Cothran said...

One Brow:

You are right: I have no evidence that you would not apply this principle equally. So I will retract my statement about doubting you. I will put you down as a consistent libertarian.

One Brow said...

Martin,

Thank you for the benefit of the doubt regarding free speech. I like to think of myself as a consistent civil libertarian (I'm not impressed much with some of their other positions). In particular I support the right to bear arms (in the context of an organized militia, which should imply at least proper training regularly maintained), the use of the death penalty in theory (although I find the practice lacking, I think we need a higher standard of proof vs. non-capital punishment), traditionally not liberal causes.