# Prop 8 (CA) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 5, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250 "2008-11-05T09:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/661 "2008-11-14T02:14:31Z")
I’m having a tough time feeling really sorry for the artistic director. He has every right to express his opinions and he can donate his own money to whatever political causes he likes, however he also has to accept the fact that in doing so he may involve himself in a real shitstorm. This is obviously an issue which millions of people have very strong feelings about and they think it directly and personally impacts their lives. So the group directly impacted by Prop 8 (gays) and other folks who aren’t the targets of it but feel very angry about it anyhow decide that they aren’t going to patronize his employer. That’s their right, they can associate with whomever they want and spend their money wherever they want. Is it necessarily the most rational decision on their part? Dunno, but I completely understand their emotional response. Using the fast-food situation as an example, if I walked into the store and recognized the guy taking my order as secretary of the local Nazi chapter I’d probably take my business elsewhere. I’m Jewish and don’t feel any love for someone who thinks that my grandparents should have been gassed. It’s not hatred for the store or the owner or anyone else there, just a feeling of revulsion and a decision to spend my money someplace else. And yes I might contact the owner and explain my decision. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/662 "2008-11-14T03:29:57Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > I’m having a tough time feeling really sorry for the artistic director. He has every right to express his opinions and he can donate his own money to whatever political causes he likes, however he also has to accept the fact that in doing so he may involve himself in a real shitstorm. This is obviously an issue which millions of people have very strong feelings about and they think it directly and personally impacts their lives. > > So the group directly impacted by Prop 8 (gays) and other folks who aren’t the targets of it but feel very angry about it anyhow decide that they aren’t going to patronize his employer. That’s their right, they can associate with whomever they want and spend their money wherever they want. Is it necessarily the most rational decision on their part? Dunno, but I completely understand their emotional response. > > Using the fast-food situation as an example, if I walked into the store and recognized the guy taking my order as secretary of the local Nazi chapter I’d probably take my business elsewhere. I’m Jewish and don’t feel any love for someone who thinks that my grandparents should have been gassed. It’s not hatred for the store or the owner or anyone else there, just a feeling of revulsion and a decision to spend my money someplace else. And yes I might contact the owner and explain my decision. And how about my hypothetical KBGT radio station guy? I can easily imagine some resident of my hypothetical town saying, “…just a feeling of revulsion and desire to spend my ad money elsewhere when I think about that guy donating money to men who want to put their penises in other men’s rectums…” Should those residents of Bigotville be permitted to take the information they glean from donor lists and use it in this way, too? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/663 "2008-11-14T03:37:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Should those residents of Bigotville be permitted to take the information they glean from donor lists and use it in this way, too? Yes, absolutely. How on Earth could you\* prevent\* them from doing so? ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/664 "2008-11-14T03:40:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And how about my hypothetical KBGT radio station guy? I can easily imagine some resident of my hypothetical town saying, “…just a feeling of revulsion and desire to spend my ad money elsewhere when I think about that guy donating money to men who want to put their penises in other men’s rectums…” > > Should those residents of Bigotville be permitted to take the information they glean from donor lists and use it in this way, too? I don’t see an enforceable and transparent alternative. People decide where to spend their money on a host of different subjective whims. If you take away the visibility into donations, you create other problems. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/665 "2008-11-14T04:23:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Yes, absolutely. How on Earth could you\* prevent\* them from doing so? Not making employer information public. Require that donors supply name and employer, but publicize only the name. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/666 "2008-11-14T04:31:07Z")
I’d be fine with that, but would such precautions have prevented this particular incident, say, if the individual’s name was very unique? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/667 "2008-11-14T05:00:32Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > I’d be fine with that, but would such precautions have prevented this particular incident, say, if the individual’s name was very unique? Maybe not.. and theoretically a determined group could stake out the home of a donor and then tail him to work. It’s not foolproof – but we both know that the majority of opportunities for harrassment will be stymied by this precaution. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/668 "2008-11-14T05:09:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Something else to consider: should the position the employee holds in the company be considered when weighing wether or not to boycott the company? I think an argument can be made that, the higher a persons position in the corporate hierarchy, the more he tends to represent the company itself. For example, if I go to McDonalds, and I recognize the guy behind the counter as a vocal local racist, I’m not going to boycott McDonalds over it. So long as he’s not harrassing the customer, I don’t give a shit what the guy bagging my fries says in his spare time. On the other hand, if the CEO of McDonalds is revealed to go on regular racist tirades in private, I’m likely to move on down the road to Burger King when I want my cholesterol fix. On the continuum of CEO-Fry Jockey, “artistic director” seems much closer to the CEO side of the scale. Indeed, as a professional artist, isn’t he specifically being paid to represent the theater (or at least, aspects thereof) to the public? and > [@Bricker](#): > > Should those residents of Bigotville be permitted to take the information they glean from donor lists and use it in this way, too? > > > [@Miller](#): > > > > Yes, absolutely. How on Earth could you\* prevent\* them from doing so? **Miller** , a question if i may. Quite a while back (almost 4 years ago, in fact), in a thread about a toy bear that had offended some people, you took a pretty strong stand against the idea of people organizing boycotts against companies whose messages or practices they disagreed with. Here’s the core of your argument in that thread: > [@That bear is NUTS.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-bear-is-nuts/288364/15): > > But I think the whole point of the free market is that, so long as a product is safe and works as advertised, _nobody_ has any business at all trying to force retailers to pull products from the market, or of depriving consumers of access to whatever product they want. > [@That bear is NUTS.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-bear-is-nuts/288364/19): > > Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Consumer activity is not limited solely to individual choices about whether or not to purchase something. Consumers also have the freedom to form voluntary associations to concentrate their purchasing power, to institute boycotts, to generate positive or negative publicity, and in many other ways to pressure the market to get what they want. This is a perfectly legitimate part of market activity. > [@That bear is NUTS.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-bear-is-nuts/288364/20): > > They have the freedom to do so in the sense that there is no law against it, and I don’t think there should (or could) be a law against it. It’s still a fucked up thing to do. It’s petty, DIY tyranny, and I’ve got zero respect for anyone who engages in an organized boycott. Such people are showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom which are the foundation of this country. > > \ > > I don’t care if they’re using the government to enforce their morals on the rest of the country, or if they’re using private pressure groups. The end result is the same: a vocal minority gets to impose their ideas of what’s right on the rest of us, without our consent. > [@That bear is NUTS.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-bear-is-nuts/288364/27): > > I’m not talking about the company’s freedom to market, I’m talking about my freedom to consume. Organized boycotts are grassroots censorship. They are attempts to dictate what other people are allowed to read/watch/hear/think about. While mercifully less effective than government censorship, they are no less disgusting, and the people responsible for them no less repulsive. I know it might seem rather bizarre that i’m bringing this up almost four years later, but i think it stuck in my mind because i was so surprised you had taken that position. I find that i agree with many (most?) of your positions on this board, but i remembered taking issue with your argument in that thread. I realize that the two situations are not identical, but i think there’s enough similarity to warrant a question about whether you have changed your mind about the general principle of the legitimacy of boycotts, or whether you think that this particular case is different enough that it does not conflict with your previous position. I’m also not asking this as a “gotcha” moment. I’ve changed my mind about things on this board, and i’m sure that someone with some time on their hands could find apparently inconsistent statements i’ve made here. I just happened to remember your previous position on boycotts, and thought i’d ask. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/669 "2008-11-14T05:15:30Z")
In my defense, I was probably pretty high when I wrote that. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/670 "2008-11-14T05:15:33Z")
Actually, on rereading the thread, i now see that you modified your stance on boycotts somewhat on the second page. I had not previously noticed those later arguments that you made. I’d still be interested to know whether your overall position on boycotts still stands, and where this particular case fits in. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/671 "2008-11-14T05:23:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > In my defense, I was probably pretty high when I wrote that. 😃 Fair enough. I wasn’t trying to suggest hypocrisy, or even that your previous position (even though i disagreed with it) required an excuse. I was simply curious enough to ask if it might have changed since then. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/672 "2008-11-14T05:24:29Z")
Okay, speaking seriously, I don’t currently agree with what I wrote in that old thread, and I’m not entirely certain how much I agreed with it at the time. Without going back and re-reading the whole thing, I suspect I got worked up over something in it, and extended my argument beyond what I could have reasonably supported. Certainly, there are any number of reasonable, even noble, reasons to engage in a boycott. There are a lot of ignoble reasons to engage in a boycott. And there’s a metric fuck-ton of stupid reasons. I’ll maintain that boycotting someone over a teddy bear (If I recall the reason for that thread correctly) is in the third category, and I don’t think I’m being particularly radical if I say that people who engaged in that boycott should be shot in the head and their bloated carcasses fed to pigs.\* But I would no longer argue that the concept of a boycott is by its nature objectionable or unacceptable. [sub]\*Okay, maybe that’s a _little_ radical.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/673 "2008-11-14T15:30:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because marriage is the societal recognition of the the natural coming together of one man and one woman. And denying the vote to women was the societal recognition of the natural superiority of men over women. We managed to get over that one too, eventually. The fact that something is recognized by society, or accepted by tradition, or is the opinion of the majority, does not confer any inherent legitimacy or truthiness. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/674 "2008-11-14T16:28:17Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > Leatherby’s Hmm, never heard of it, but I am pretty new to the area., relatively speaking, and actually live in Folsom, which lessens my knowledge of Sacramento. What bothers me is that I don’t know where the line is. Folks are talking about this emplloyee versus that employee, etc. But what about other considerations? What if he only donated $25? What if he donated no money but did phone banking? What if he had a bumper sticker onhis car? I understand the sense of betrayal and one can be angry aat an individual. But I am very uncomfortable with the punitive, retibutive nature of some of this. In a democracy we don’t punish someone for their views, we reason , educate, debate, we engage people and we try and convince them of the correct-ness of our side. I am not an advocate of browbeating people into submission. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/675 "2008-11-14T17:30:51Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > And denying the vote to women was the societal recognition of the natural superiority of men over women. We managed to get over that one too, eventually. > > The fact that something is recognized by society, or accepted by tradition, or is the opinion of the majority, does not confer any inherent legitimacy or truthiness. Right. Only God’s law, not man’s, may confer legitimacy. And how do we know God’s Law? Well, since He’s pretty busy, you can ask me. I will let you know, for any circumstance, what conforming to His will requires. Or did you have some other system in mind? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/676 "2008-11-14T17:32:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Right. Only God’s law, not man’s, may confer legitimacy. > > And how do we know God’s Law? > > Well, since He’s pretty busy, you can ask me. I will let you know, for any circumstance, what conforming to His will requires. > > Or did you have some other system in mind? To be quite honest, I’d trust you to interpret god’s law over most people I know. I don’t always agree with you, but I believe you at least try to think things through completely. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/677 "2008-11-14T17:45:43Z")
You show me a man who thinks things through completely, and I’ll show you a guy who would have started chuckling at the first mention of “God’s law.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/678 "2008-11-14T18:11:09Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > To be quite honest, I’d trust you to interpret god’s law over most people I know. I don’t always agree with you, but I believe you at least try to think things through completely. That’s a great compliment, and I thank you sincerely. And hopefully my tongue-in-cheek commentary about God’s law doesn’t obscure the real point, which is: in a society, we have to have some system of arriving at a decision about how we’re going to do things. Sure, if I were in charge, same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere. But not all my ideas would be greeted with such glee, I feel sure. And even if they were – even if we all agreed that I’m just so all-fired hip and cool that my reign as philosopher-king is assured… what happens when I die? It’s true that the law doesn’t confer legitimacy in some utterly pure sense. But it’s the vehicle by which we, as a group, have agreed to make these decisions. So from a practical standpoint… yeah, it kinda DOES mean legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/679 "2008-11-14T18:27:23Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Something else to consider: should the position the employee holds in the company be considered when weighing wether or not to boycott the company? I think an argument can be made that, the higher a persons position in the corporate hierarchy, the more he tends to represent the company itself. This is key. > [@Bricker](#): > > Not making employer information public. > > Require that donors supply name and employer, but publicize only the name. Makes perfect sense. There’s no more reason to publicize the name of his employer than to publicize his favorite NFL team or menswear outlet. > [@Bricker](#): > > Well, since He’s pretty busy, you can ask me. I will let you know, for any circumstance, what conforming to His will requires. > > Or did you have some other system in mind? Although I recognise that your comment was at least partly a joke, surely you recognise that in America, most of the progress toward true equality came from the [judicial] bench, rather than from the voting booth. Women’s suffrage was, if not unique, then certainly an unusual achievement. > [@Bricker](#): > > And even if they were – even if we all agreed that I’m just so all-fired hip and cool that my reign as philosopher-king is assured… what happens when I die? We’ll do what we always do when philosopher-kings die. We’ll prop you up in a chair and toss a coin when we need you to make a decision. Er… okay, we’ll compile all your wisdom in book form, and appoint a group of elders to interpret your words to apply to any new controversies that crop up. We’ll also go ahead and assume that you recognized that one day we’d invent broadcast television and the internet and the automobile and space shuttle and telephone and gender reassignment surgery and partial-birth abortion. You know, what with you being so wise, and all. It’s only natural that you’d leave us a clue about what to do about all this newfangled stuff. Failing that, we’ll choose something you said at random and mumble about analogous circumstances. We could call this system “ecclesiastical courts”, or maybe just “courts” for short. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/680 "2008-11-14T18:40:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > We could call this system “ecclesiastical courts”, or maybe just “courts” for short. I like the cut of your jib, mister. > [@](#): > > …surely you recognise that in America, most of the progress toward true equality came from the [judicial] bench, rather than from the voting booth. Women’s suffrage was, if not unique, then certainly an unusual achievement. Eh… not sure I agree. The Fourteenth Amendment was a result of the voting booth. (As were the Thirteenth and the Fifteenth!) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a huge step that came from the voters as well. (“Voters” meaning “the legislatures selected by the voters,” of course). Yes, the judiciary needs to be effective in applying the words the legislature has crafted, but they shouldn’t decide to essentially craft new words out of a desire to help us progress towards true equality. That’s a noble goal, but it’s not what their job is supposed to be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=35)