|
The wave intolerance that started in California over that state’s voters’ approval of Proposition 8 has spilled over into Texas with the publication by an Austin-based web site (warrenandderrick.com) of a blacklist of Texas companies whose employees contributed money to the Yes on 8 campaign. (Hat tip Michelle Malkin). While the blog post in question explicitly states that the bloggers are not going to try to tell their readers how to spend their money because “What you do with your money, is your choice” this claim is quickly belied by the “blacklist” (their description) itself which, in the case of a former Los Angeles Dodgers infielder who supported Prop 8 and now lives in Texas, exhorted readers to “Show your support for equality by refusing to purchase Dodgers merchandise, memorabilia, and tickets.” The publication of this blacklist in Texas has followed on the heels of successful intimidation campaigns in California against businesses and organizations whose associates chose to support Prop 8. According to this LA Times article, after the publication of a list showing that a manager at the El Coyote Mexican Café had donated $100 to Yes on 8, a mob of 200 protesters gathered outside the restaurant yelling vulgarities at the clientele to the point where an employee of the café was worried about even coming to work. This blog contains an eyewitness account and video of a meeting the restaurant had with the protesters in the hopes of preventing a boycott of the café. The manager who had donated the $100 to Yes on 8 is driven to tears in the video and has to be literally supported by friends while she stands to issue her apology lest she fall over. That’s how frightened she is. The restaurant owners are intimidated into making donations to pro-same-sex marriage groups to propitiate the mob. Threats of boycotts also caused the director of the LA Film Festival, Richard Raddon, to lose his job according to Variety. The CEO of Cinemark, Alan Stock, is also under pressure. There’s a Facebook group dedicated to boycotting his employer. But what’s the purpose of boycotting the employer of a supporter of Prop 8 if the company itself takes no position on same-sex marriage? The number one company, for example, on the Texas blacklist is Dell even though the computer manufacturer takes no position on Prop 8 and supports local gay rights groups. The inclusion of Dell on the list is based solely on the contribution by one (non-executive) employee to Yes on 8. The only purpose that I can think of for the boycotts is to create a disincentive for companies to employ people who oppose same-sex marriage. In other words the purpose of the boycotts is to make Prop 8 supporters lose their jobs. This could obviously have a tremendously chilling effect on political association. Can you imagine what it would be like if your boss were to look up your political associations before your annual review, or if job interviewers were to check the political leanings of prospective employees? The illiberalism of the boycotters and blacklisters is, frankly, stunning to me. The funds donated to the Yes on 8 campaign, after all, are used entirely for persuading the electorate of California that their position is correct. The funds are used for speech: for television and radio spots, for websites, for pamphlets, yard signs, for petition drives. Obviously a lot of people in California and elsewhere oppose Prop 8 (6,246,463 Californians voted against it, after all), but in a healthy democracy that opposition ought to come in the form of making better arguments to a larger audience, not in the form of getting your opponents to shut up out of fear for their livelihoods. The Warren & Derrick blog's blacklist post asserts that "one of the best ways for us to make our message against hate be heard is to speak loudly with our wallets and pocket books." Wrong. The best way to make your message be heard is to speak out with, you know, your actual voices and writing. Actual speech is better than symbolic gestures in form of boycotts because actual speech can contain an explanation of the reasons you hold the opinions you do. Actual speech can contain references to facts and evidence and logic and even emotional appeals and poetry. Boycotts are purely negative. They exclude their target from the social and economic community, and while boycotts may shut off the expression of opposing views, they can never convince anyone of anything.
What's really surprising to me though is that the case for toleration even needs to be made in 2008. John Stuart Mill made the definitive argument in his classic essay "On Liberty" in 1869. One would think that an historically oppressed minority such as the gay community would be especially sympathetic to Mill's arguments. One would, apparently, be wrong. Another disturbing aspect of the boycott movement is its tinge of religious bigotry. Many of the targets of intimidation have been Mormons, including the woman at the El Coyote Mexican Café and guy who lost his job at the LA Film Fest. The Austin American-Statesman article on the Texas blacklist reports that Some gay activists have even gone as far as to push for a boycott of the entire state of Utah, because the Mormon Church was one of the biggest contributors of money and volunteers to the Yes on 8 campaign. Americablog.com is urging skiers to avoid Utah's slopes this winter to make a statement against the state and the church, which is based in Salt Lake City. In Hollywood, meanwhile, some are suggesting the annual Sundance Film Festival, which starts Jan. 15, should be moved from its longtime home of Park City, Utah. After the recently concluded presidential election campaign which brought out so much anti-Mormon vitriol against Republican candidate Mitt Romney, my eyes have really been opened about how much religious bigotry is out there. | 
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
mac_the_mike's journal
satisfied
contemplative
curious
tired
