Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In the aftermath of the passage of Prop 8 in California, some gay rights groups are calling for boycotts of those businesses that donated money to the campaign to stop same sex marriage in that state. And suddenly, the religious rights is shocked - SHOCKED - at the notion of boycotting a business over political disagreements. Like this guy:
Some Proposition 8 supporters say a minority of protesters have gone too far by targeting individuals. Opponents of the measure have called for a boycott of the California Musical Theatre after revelations that artistic director Scott Eckern, a Mormon, donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 Campaign. Members of his church played a significant role in the campaign."It's disheartening that he is being singled out," said Lisa West, spokeswoman for the church in the Sacramento area. "We had hoped there would be more tolerance for different viewpoints."
Funny, I don't recall hearing anyone on the other side calling for "tolerance of different viewpoints" when the American Family Association was calling for boycotts of Ford and McDonald's because those companies dared to market to gay people.
Others who supported Proposition 8 said they have also been targeted. Scott Purves, of Purves & Associates, a Davis insurance company, said a protester carrying a sign reading "Purves Family Supports Homophobia" picketed his business Monday."If this had gone the other way, I can't imagine the backlash if people protested and called the other side names," said Purves. "People would be angry and rightfully so. ... It makes me sad that this would happen when a majority of people supported this measure."
And how is this any different at all from people protesting outside McDonald's over their allegedly pro-gay policies? There has also been some vandalism done in response to those who supported Prop 8 and that is something I condemn without reservation. But I have zero sympathy for those who feign outrage at being boycotted. That's a taste of their own medicine.
I wouldn't take this too far. I've seen one report of a boycott called for a restaurant because one of the managers donated to the Prop 8 campaign. I think that's going too far. But for a business owned by a major donor to the campaign, I think that's fair game.
Politics
Comments
That just busted my irony meter all to pieces.
Posted by: Tex | November 17, 2008 9:51 AM
"We had hoped there would be more tolerance for different viewpoints."
This is a joke, right?
Posted by: Deepsix | November 17, 2008 9:54 AM
So, when people vote to deprive a minority group of a right enjoyed by everyone else, that's just fine.
But when that same minority uses their free speech to protest against said deprivation, why, that's intolerance of opposing viewpoints!
So tolerance, to these people, means not protesting when others deprive you of your rights. Just sit down and take it.
Few things infuriate me more than the people who use the language of tolerance and freedom to promote intolerance of others and deprive them of their rights. The fact that the Mormons, who perpetrated this intolerance against gays, are now trying to portray themselves as victims of intolerance is positively absurd.
So, Fuck you, Lisa West. And, yes, I did just single you out.
Posted by: Wes | November 17, 2008 9:56 AM
It is a case of putting your money where your mouth is. The donations are a matter of public record so if individuals wish to boycott or actively picket them, isn't that their business. I seem to recall several people picketing and boycotting Ford and McDonalds. Like most of these people, it seems to be a huge case of "Do as I say, not as I do"
I can't find it, but I think either the AFA or FotF sent a letter to people and companies who donated to Equality America saying that they wanted a donation of equal measure otherwise they were going to publish their names in hopes that their supporters would picket and boycott them.
Posted by: Donna | November 17, 2008 9:59 AM
"We had hoped there would be more tolerance for different viewpoints."
In other news, the KKK is disappointed that people don't tolerate their viewpoint.
Posted by: Eric | November 17, 2008 10:02 AM
WTF. Are these loons serious? They made their statement by donating to prop 8 and now they need to live with the consequences. Were they really surprised at the backlash when, what should have been a statewide celebration of tolerance, was defeated by the passage? They paid for hate and they reap what they sow.
Posted by: Mike | November 17, 2008 10:21 AM
Anybody keeping a list? I would like to know who to boycott, but I'm in Texas. I have heard a number of national companies are owned by people who donated to pass prop 8.
Posted by: uncle noel | November 17, 2008 10:28 AM
Wait, the guy's name is "Perves"? I suppose he insists on pronouncing the final e....
Posted by: Timothy Sandefur | November 17, 2008 10:35 AM
Is there a list anywhere of the businesses and whatnot that provided donates to Prop 8? I really hope In 'n Out wasn't one of them lol :( I know they tend to lean on the religious side, but dammit, they have animal style fries.
Posted by: marilove | November 17, 2008 10:50 AM
Boycotts worked pretty well for MLK in the '50s. It's good to see prop 8 opponents using them to.
Posted by: Rufus | November 17, 2008 10:50 AM
Another funny thing is is that before the election the "Yes on 8" people threatened to reveal the names of businesses who donated to the "No on 8" campaign if those people didn't also donate the same amount to the "Yes on 8" campaign. They obviously were hoping for boycotts of those businesses.
Posted by: Mark M | November 17, 2008 10:51 AM
See this link for what I was talking about in my previous post.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081024/news_1n24threat.html
Posted by: Mark M | November 17, 2008 10:53 AM
Uncle Noel, you can use this link to search for Prop 8 contributors, pro and con-
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/
Posted by: Rick R | November 17, 2008 10:58 AM
Okay, so let's accept their premise that too many people are getting married and somehow this dilutes the value of the franchise. Who else should't be allowed to marry?
I suggest we start with the LDS. They are vile heretics and blasphemers and regularly engage in plural marriages just like Old Testament patriarchs -- read Jews! -- what more need be said?
Next come the AFA folk themselves. Closeted homosexuals (at best), they voted themselves out of marriage rights, serves 'em right.
African Americans: Simultaneously voted for and against civil rights in the same election. Come back when you figure out what you want.
White people: The people that brought us wonderbread weddings (reception to follow in the church fellowship hall), NASCAR, WWF Smackdown, and Fox News. Riiight, as if we're going to let them breed.
Atheists: Sorry, just traditional to discriminate against you. Besides, how often do pencil-necked math geeks get a date, much less a wife?
Left-handed pipe fitters of Guatemalan origin: Just being complete here.
So it turns out, I am the only male in America who should be eligible for marriage. And I have no desire to be married again. So lets call the whole thing off.
;D
Posted by: kehrsam | November 17, 2008 10:58 AM
Thanks, Rick R!
And don't forget, kehrsam, all the straight couples who can't procreate -- they should of course not get married, seeing as marriage is all about families and children!! If you are infertile, can't get married! If you're over 35 (or whatever), can't get married! If you've had a medical procedure (male or female) that keeps you from having children, can't get married! If you get married and haven't had a child in five years, your marriage must be nullified!
Posted by: marilove | November 17, 2008 11:04 AM
This is incredibly stupid. It's an exercise in whining for the religious right, trying to defend bigotry and hatred.
They talk as though boycott isn't a legitimate form of protest, as though this is some underhanded move.
As you pointed out, Ed (great post, as always), they organized protests of major organizations by way of boycott, and it's good that the "No on 8" crowd is doing that too.
Posted by: JStein | November 17, 2008 11:10 AM
There's a nicely organized list of Prop. 8 supporters here:
http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html
Posted by: Jim Lippard | November 17, 2008 11:29 AM
I have mixed feelings about these boycotts. If a business or the owner of a business donated, then that's the risk they took and I have no problem refusing to do business with them.
But every donor has to put his employer's name on the disclosure forms, regardless of whether his beliefs represent his employer's position on the issue or not. Take this random guy I found in the online search as an example:
Contributor name Garth Smith
Occupation Design Specialist
Employer CALAWAY GOLF
Should golfers throw away their Calaway golf clubs because one of their designers supported Prop 8? Calaway wasn't legally allowed to ask this guy how he felt about gay marriage before hiring him, and they're not allowed to fire him now that they know.
California Musical Theatre probably finds itself in a similar situation.
Posted by: Cathy | November 17, 2008 11:54 AM
I just looked through a little of the database and, in PA, found John Templeton Jr and Josephine Templeton Jr gave over a million dollars (1.2 mil actually) in support of prop 8. They did it in several contributions and I was wondering is there was any limit to amounts legally allowed? Don't ever recall seeing this but I'd love to nail their butts.
They couldn't just leave the money to their pet cat like other loons with too much money and too little compassion or sense?
Posted by: Mike | November 17, 2008 12:31 PM
@cathy
I think most people would (and should) say no to boycotting Calaway Golf over this. There is a difference between an employers position and an employees. Locally (minnesota) there is a finance director working at the Target HQ that donated. Should he be fired or Target (one of the gayest companies around) be boycotted? The answer should be no (however I don't envy that guys position right now).
(the word "hate" is close to being put on my list of words overused to the point of meaninglessness)
Posted by: yoshi | November 17, 2008 12:34 PM
The response I see from Prop 8 supporters that annoys me the most is, "The proposition passed. Deal with it." I'd like to say to them, "The supreme court said same sex marriage was legal. Why didn't you deal with that?"
These people Just Don't Get It.
Posted by: Richard Crawford | November 17, 2008 12:43 PM
Headline: "Prop. 8 victors upset by personal attacks"
Breaking up marriages? Pshaw. But commerce, that's personal!
Posted by: Noah Webster | November 17, 2008 1:34 PM
But I have zero sympathy for those who feign outrage at being boycotted. That's a taste of their own medicine.
It's not valid to justify this just because some wackos threatened boycotts of McDonalds or Disney, it is very likely that many of the people here attacked had nothing at all to do with the actions of those groups.
This is messy all around. First I fully agree that the outings and boycotts are legal and protected by the first amendment.
But would you not be outraged if pressure groups exerted pressure on employers because people on their staff were gay, or atheist (I am sure your would acknowledge it was legal, but still would be outraged). Were you not atleast somewhat outraged by the attacks on PZ (even though he appears tough enough to handle it... but what if it had cost his job?)
Is that donor employer requirement a legal requirement? That opens up an incredible problem (as does the requirement for names) ESPECIALLY for people willing to support politically unpopular positions. Perhaps this is finance law run amuk.
Posted by: jayh | November 17, 2008 1:58 PM
Wes:
I stepped in to say the same thing. What really enrages me is the hypocrisy of it: the same bigots who'll speak out in favor of denying rights to others based on their sexuality cry "intolerance!" when we try to add sexuality to the list of classes protected by civil rights legislation, even taking it so far as to tell hyperbolic lies about the new measure being tantamount to "banning the Bible. It's okay for them to practice legally-enforced discrimination, but not okay for us to try and put a stop to it.
Then they wonder why people are angry.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | November 17, 2008 2:18 PM
The Artistic Director of a Musical Theatre company is against homosexual rights?
Really?
Next you'll tell me the CEO of McDonalds is a vegan.
Posted by: Andrew | November 17, 2008 2:22 PM
Very little infuriates me more than people who are ignorant, stupid, and apparently EXTREMELY two-faced.
Can we please get more aggressive on these dumb fucks? We have to stop being 'nice' liberals and start mowing down these assholes' intrusions on others' rights a little more aggressively.
We socially liberal people are also capable of being aggressive and combative. Non-violently, of course; but we can give them a fucking smackdown. We need to give them a smackdown now.
Posted by: Katharine | November 17, 2008 2:47 PM
Interesting how people tend to use different measures to suit their needs.
So far we have:
- conservatives that demand not to be treated like they have treated others
- racial minority groups have have fought and are still fighting for their rights, and happily - no, agrressively deny them to others.
Posted by: EB | November 17, 2008 2:51 PM
Andrew: The Self-Hating Jews are looking to expand... But did you see the candidate (for governor, I believe)in Montana who had to scurry when he was accused of being a vegetarian? Politics imitates sarcasm.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 17, 2008 2:56 PM
I did a little further digging and found that John Templeton Jr is spending his father's money through the John Templeton Foundation from which he and his wife support many unworthy causes. He was (at some point) the second biggest individual donor in support of Prop 8.
Nothing to really boycott so far, only loathe.
Posted by: Mike | November 17, 2008 2:59 PM
The people who are complaining are the same people (sort of) who were protesting in front of a contractor's private resident becase he was contructing a Planned Parenthood facility.
Goose/gander.
Posted by: jufulu FCD | November 17, 2008 3:36 PM
I understand in the case of the restaurant being boycotted that the manager who donated is also the owner. I could be wrong.
I agree some of the suggestions are over the top such as boycotting Marriots because the owner's sister donated in favor of prop 8 (the owner is Mormon but apparently did not donate). Or boycotting Utah.
Posted by: Erp | November 17, 2008 3:53 PM
"because people on their staff were gay, or atheist "
I am sick of the false comparisons too. Equating voting for Prop 8, which harmed millions of people, with being gay or atheist, is inaccurate if not deliberately dishonest.
There is a difference between boycotting a business or person for harming others, as those who supported Prop 8 did, and boycotting a business or person for allowing equal rights for others.
Y'all are missing the larger lesson in the complaining from supporters of Prop 8. First, they were outraged that the state and federal Constitutions, through the concept of Judicial Review, applied to and protected GLBTQ people - so, in state after state, most recently AA, CA, and FL, they acted to exclude GLBTQ people from the protection of their state and federal Constitutions, denying GLBTQ people equal protection, freedom to marry, and freedom of religion. Now, they are incensed that we are allowed to exercise our freedom of speech and assembly.
They truly believe that GLBTQ people should not have any rights or recognition or protection under the law, and seek to roll-back and eliminate any and all civil liberties that GLBTQ people possess. Their outrage over our exercise of out freedom of speech and assembly is proof.
For homophobes, banning same-sex marriage is supposed to be the point where they turn the tables in their favor. Since people tend to continue on a path marked by shame and wrongdoing, and support increasing prejudicial acts rather than admit to being wrong, the homophobes hope to create a trajectory toward their goal.
By getting mainstream society to deliberately and purposefully legislate inequality for one thing (marriage), homophobes expect to create momentum leading toward the criminalization of homosexuality.
Posted by: Darr Sandberg | November 17, 2008 3:59 PM
Also notice: Mr. Perves asserts that people are "calling names." If name calling is demonstrably true--Prop 8 is homophobic, by definition (though 'homophobic' is itself a poor word construction, since it means "fear of the same" or some such, but we get the point.) The sign Mr. Perves objects to does not "call names" other than his own. Even calling Mr. Perves a bigot is essentially true; he is advocating the codification of a prejudice against homosexual people. So add to the "name calling" one more: hypocrite.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 17, 2008 4:22 PM
Who knew gay men were prone to throwing hissy fits?
(I'm going to get such a slap for that.)
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 17, 2008 4:31 PM
Heh heh.....boycott Utah. Now THAT'S funny.
Posted by: whonuoh | November 17, 2008 4:33 PM
Two great South Park references fit here:
"Intolerance vill not be tolerated!" (Death Camp of Intolerance)
"We don't take kindly to social intolerants around these parts" (Apologies to Jesse Jackson)
Posted by: Michael | November 17, 2008 4:41 PM
About the boycott of the restaurant you mention... I think you're talking about El Coyote in Los Angeles. This should be a fair target for a couple reasons. (1) It was the daughter of the owner, so she kinda falls into the ownership circle. (2) This is (was) a very popular place for gay and progressive minded people to eat. It's not really going to be a big effort to boycott this place: the community knows about the donation and the restaurant will be forever tarnished as a result. The cat is out of the bag and there is no putting it back in. In this case, it's more a situation of really bad PR fallout than a boycott.
Here's more info including a link to some videos of the "customer meeting" they had:
http://www.stopthemormons.com/?p=17
Posted by: Darin W | November 17, 2008 4:45 PM
I agree with Darin that El Coyote is a fair target, although I've been avoiding the place for years. Their food sucks. There are no excuses for anti-gay bigotry OR bad enchiladas in LA.
Good margaritas, though.
Posted by: Rob Lll | November 17, 2008 5:20 PM
LOL. I walked by Purves & Associates dozens of times, always chuckling to myself about how funny of a name. Like this is where you'd find perverts, if you needed to find them. Looks like Purves is perverted in a different sort of way.
I hope that the people responding to proposition 8 don't hurt the public image of their movement, outrage yes, legal attacks yes, protests yes, personal attacks no.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | November 17, 2008 5:29 PM
But would you not be outraged if pressure groups exerted pressure on employers because people on their staff were gay, or atheist
Being gay, or atheist, is not a form of political advocacy.
Posted by: Neil H | November 17, 2008 6:59 PM
This reminds me of the wedding-related businesses in California that told the LA Times that they wouldn't cater or do flowers for gays but didn't want to be identified - since they were afraid they'd lose business. When did they lose the courage of their convictions?
Posted by: The Ridger | November 17, 2008 7:36 PM
On that note, I'd recommend anyone in the Sacramento area avoid Leatherby's Family Creamery, if doing so wouldn't require them to explain to an autistic four-year-old why she isn't getting her favorite ice cream any more. (I will make a point of telling them the next time we're in that the main reason we're even patronizing them at all is that "our daughter loves your ice cream, and hurting innocent people by taking something away from them that makes them happy when they share it with someone they love, that's emotionally important to them, and that they've had for a while and gotten used to, just so we can feel smug about 'upholding our convictions' is wrong.")
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 17, 2008 8:06 PM
Physical attacks, no, you mean. Personal attacks, while not necessarily productive, are perfectly legitimate. Or would you contend that a person's choices are not relevant to the analysis of their character?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 17, 2008 8:12 PM
Azkyroth said:
I would add something like "... Just like preventing two people who love each other from expressing and celebrating their love, legally, just like everyone else, so you can uphold your convictions, is just plain wrong" just to make sure they really get the point.
I'm not saying they're dumb, I suspect that they simply haven't thought it through -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 17, 2008 9:37 PM
I've seen variations on the "black voters who came out for Obama passed Prop 8" meme several times in this comment thread. It's worth excerpting this comment from Nate Silver at 538.com which my dad e-mailed to me and my sister:
Posted by: MPW | November 17, 2008 10:06 PM
Tolerance is you accepting my viewpoint as correct.
Intolerance is you expecting me to acknowledge your viewpoint exists.
Much the same can be said for Patriotism and Freedom (with the all important capitals).
Posted by: Andrew | November 18, 2008 6:19 AM
I feel there are two points to the employee of a business issue. I will agree when the point is that they merely are an employee of the business. However, I feel it altogether different when that employee has explicitly claimed their employer's support of the cause. In that case, I have the right to expect the employer to address this, be it by owning-up to agreement with what was claimed or by taking appropriate action against the employee for taking liberties with the employer's name.
Posted by: J W | November 18, 2008 9:29 AM
How many white people voted for Prop. 8? Did they vote for it because they were white or did they vote for it because of their "religious beliefs"? I ask because so many people seem to be saying that it was black people's blackness that caused them to vote for Prop. 8, as opposed to their allegiance to their "religion." It seems to me that the problem of all the people of all races who voted for this malicious, intolerant proposition is, as usual, RELIGION. Can we stop blaming black people for their blackness while voting, and heap our scorn, disgust, and outrage on f@#king "religious" people who want the right to practice their vile intolerance and hate with impunity? Please, people.
Posted by: dea | November 18, 2008 8:14 PM
Oh my gosh is it "opposite day" already? "Tolerance of other viewpoints" means we have to allow you to support a legal overturning of rights for millions of people, but it doesn't mean you have to allow those people to have rights to begin with??! How exactly does that work?
Posted by: Southern Beale | November 19, 2008 7:58 AM
"so many people seem to be saying that it was black people's blackness that caused them to vote for Prop. 8, "
That is not what people are saying at all.
However, there have been more than a few people implying "don't criticize our vote on Prop 8 because we are black"
Posted by: Darr Sandberg | November 24, 2008 5:55 PM