Bricker, If I’m reading correctly, you may want to edit Proposition Z example.
I don’t THINK so, but maybe I’m blind to my own error. What am I missing?
(Note that I did make an edit before your post was up, but perhaps not before you started typing…so what I’m saying is I think I’m in good shape now, but please disabuse me of that notion if it’s untrue…) Bert contributes against the anti-SSM amendment and gets boycotted by Christian activists; Andy contributes in favor of the anti-SSM amendment and gets boycotted by LGBT activists. I think I captured that, yes?
It appears correct now as “to oppose Prop Z”.
Bricker- in either case, I don’t think it would be just to fire those people, because they are in no way using their work position for the cause. I would personally we live in a world where someone can lose their job and still be able to live without issue, but I know that’s not the case - given that, I don’t think it should be legal to fire people for what is essentially no work-related reason at all. Now, if the person in question started pressuring employees or customers, hanging up things at work, etc, then it would be a trickier issue.
Luckily, as far as I’m aware, no LGBT groups have done boycotts just for places having homophobic employees - otherwise they’d have to boycott everywhere imaginable. Instead they have primarily targeted companies owned by people who fund anti-LGBT groups, or celebrities and public figures who use their position to promote causes.
Does the word Chick-Fil-A ring a bell??
What about Carrie Prejean??
.
You don’t recall this story?
Or this one?
Eckern was forced – or to be more clear. under threat of a boycott, he “chose” – to apologize by taking out an ad in the paper.
Despite claims to the contrary, corporations are not individuals.
And what job did Carrie Prejean lose?
That doesnt matter. Had the Chick-Fil-A boycott been successfull many individuals (AKA employees) wouldve lost their job(s). Prejean was stripped of her Miss California USA crown for simply stating her opinion when it was asked of her, and lost potential sponsorship deals because of it
I don’t know how to answer Bricker’s hypothetical except to say that I personally would always support increased inclusiveness except if the parties ivolved were breaking the law (ie child pornographers). It is to be hoped that by embracing inclusiveness this would lead to a greater potential supply of customers and therfore a lesser impact from a boycott but as the Chik-fil-A case shows this is not always true.
You apparently think donating money is the form of a thought, and not an action?
You think boycotting a company run by a man who donated money to groups that fought against condemning a bill that makes homosexuality punishable by death is a “thought crime”.
You think boycotting a company run by a man who donated money to groups that openly say they want to make homosexual actions illegal is a “thought crime”.
Yes, I think we’re done here. You’ve shown you really are playing “devil’s advocate”. Let’s all be nice to the people who want to arrest and imprison homosexuals - they’re the REAL victims here!
Ahem…
The chick that was stripped of her title because she clearly violated her contract with the pageant (and not with her answer on the question of Prop 8, incidentally)?
Does not pass smell test.
This is a pretty devastating rebuttal of Esco’s “thought crime,” claim, to be sure. Not that it needed it; it was an extraordinarily weak argument.
I literally do not recall that second story - I am fairly certain I have never seen it. As usual, you take on an accusatory tone that assumes everyone is lying, assuming I would remember something that happened a fifth of my life span ago about a guy who’s of so low note he doesn’t even have a wikipedia page and was the director of a place I never heard of that is three time zones away. I am so sorry I didn’t remember that. What should I do for my repentance?
And while I was familiar with the first, no, I did not remember it until recently - largely because it appears to have been a one time thing. It was poor tactics from people who were understandably angry, and not picked up by any major groups. It was poor form, but it still doesn’t even come close to ‘thought crimes’ or to the amount of "hypocrisy of gay groups’. Some people temporarily organized five years ago and did a thing, and now you’re shamed with that thing forever? The bullshit of “poor persecuted little minority” and calling LGBT rights groups “crybabies” is just ridiculous.
You know who’s the real hypocritical crybabies? The right wing. Look how much they sobbed over people exercising their free market rights that they supposedly support. Look at how much they sob and cry and complain on this message board over being told that hey, sometimes words changes definitions.
I’m not accusing you, nor asking you to repent. To the extent that you did not know about, or did not recall, the incident, I wanted to remind you.
I agree that “thought crimes” is an utterly indefensible and absurd charge.
Hypocrisy of gay groups, though, may not be. In my opinion, and recalling the discussions here when those events occurred, I think it’s fair to say that many in the LGBT community were perfectly willing to apply a double standard: to support their right to boycott an establishment with an employee that donated to support Prop 8, and the right of the business to fire such an employee… while at the same time willing to defend the political expression rights of a person who donated money to fight Prop 8 and faced termination as a result.
Do you disagree?
Carrie Prejean did not lose her job for her political position, she lost her job for failure to fulfill her contract, and for writing a book in violation of the rules which said that any proceeds during her reign belonged to the Miss California organization. She was also found to be in violation because there were X-rated videos of her.
The Chick-Fil-A employees would not have lost their jobs because of their political positions.
Had the boycott against Chick-Fil-A been successful, restaurants would have had less demand, and less need for staff to service that demand. Staff would have lost their jobs as a result of the boycott regardless of their political positions.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.
Staff could have lost their jobs because of their employer’s political position, but not because of their own positions. Necessarily.
Well…yes, except that that has an aspect of victim-blaming. Why blame the employer’s political position? Why not blame the boycotters? Staff lose their job because the boycotters acted, yes?
Dude, are you for real?? Nobody at Chick-Fil-A said they wanted gays put to death.
The owner was simply against gay marriage: Chick-fil-A and LGBTQ people - Wikipedia
And while I disagree with him and think gays should be able to get married, boycotting some organization for their beliefs, and potentially harming innocent employees because of the boycott is simply wrong IMO.
And these boycotts are becoming less and less about making a point, and more aboot revenge