With respect, and while I agree with Mr. Oman that we must find ways "to
live peacefully and productively" when we profoundly disagree, on this
issue, it would have been helpful if those opposed to permitting me to marry had
taken this approach before funding Proposition 8 and other efforts to block my
marriage.Perhaps the approach could have been to support my right to
marry as well as the right of the photographer and the baker to refuse me
service. Now, alas, it's a bit late to bemoan the lack of accommodation to
both sides.I think both sides have something to contribute to the
discussion. Maybe we can all learn from our mistakes. Here's my promise:
I will stand up for the right of others to remain 'free agents' if
they too stand up for my right to marry.Peace.
I could not disagree more with Mr Oman. And does his stance on boycott only
pertain to the Gay marriage issue? And possibly only one side of this issue?In fact, I am surprised that anyone would take this stance. Certainly
we can and do disagree with the substance of the boycott. But what better way
than to peacefully picket or boycott a product or service? And try to get
others to do the same. What better way to affect change? In fact, what OTHER
way is there to affect change?Personally, I have no issue with the
CEO donation and do use Mozilla (and will continue to do so).You
cant decry the mechanism based on the side of an argument. Either voting with
your $$, boycotting or picketing is acceptable or it is not.Consistency people; Consistency
Ten years ago the far right initiated a boycott against the Dixie Chicks, trying
to destroy them because they dared to criticize GWBush. I wonder how many of
the people who are now defending Eich and Mozilla also defended the Dixie Chicks
and spoke out against the boycott and economic attack they suffered. Just
wondering . . .
If we had a free market, as the author is suggesting, there would be natural
mechanisms to punish firms or businesses that engage in discrimination. Thank
goodness those mechanisms are being utilized in this case and preventing firms
from being led by a potential discriminator. Had that been the case during the
civil rights movement, our country would have ironed out racism more efficiently
by making it economically destructive to discriminate on the basis of race.
Unfortunately, the government intervened and produced poor results, even decades
after the initial intervention. We can either be interested in producing
efficient markets that expose and punish behaviors that inhibit trust, or
complacently accept a market that tolerates discriminatory behavior at the
expense of it's full potential.
Mr. Oman would do well to realize that prohibiting gay marriages is less
beneficial to the economy than allowing them.
Remember the Supreme Court saying that political campaign contributions are a
form of "free speech"?Well I consider the money I spend a
form of free speech. That's why every dollar I DON'T spend at WalMart
is a little, tiny vote against the behavior of that particular corporation.Why is it fine for the Koch Brothers, and Sheldon Addleson to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars to express their rights of free speech, but it
is somehow petty and childish for us 99% percenters to use our pocketbooks, to
make our feelings know?
The condemnation of boycotts should cut both ways. Those who won't use
gay-friendly businesses, or provide services to gays, are culpable, too, are
In regard to Mr. Oman's schoolyard reasoning, I think my boycott is fair
and just. Your boycott is petulant and naughty. So there.
Good reminders about the power of the market and consumer's right to choice
and responsibility for cooperation.Shouldn't this message apply
equally to conservatives and liberals? The examples of inappropriate boycotts
you mention are all done by supporters of gay marriage. What about those
opponents of SSM who are now boycotting Mozilla for not defending its CEO? Is
that justified? Were Christian donors justified last month when they withdrew
sponsorships from World Vision in protest of its inclusive employment policies.
Do you support the One Million Moms website? What is the unbiased basis
for determing when market pressure is justified? If you're ok with it
whenever it supports your position but not when it doesn't, that sounds
more like whining than a consistent argument. That goes for everyone. We could
all spend less time complaining about the other and instead exercise some self
criticism and thought about what we will do to improve the conversation. A good
measure might be "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Conservative and religious groups use boycotts and social pressure all the time,
and I'm pretty sure you guys don't object to that. Are you even
trying to come up with a coherent argument against gay marriage anymore, or are
you just pouting?
Wow, this is some convoluted logic. SO this paper publishes multiple articles
that support the SCOTUS decision that money is free speech. Yet when the
"little people" use their so called right to free speech, by boycotting
a business they don't agree with it's a bad thing. Why is it ok to buy
a politician, but it's not ok to avoid businesses that have practices we
disagree with. It's all using our money as a form of speech right? And the
organic grocery guy, what did you think is going to happen? The people who go to
that kind of store tend to be left leaning hippies. I know if I owned a gun
store I wouldn't post on Facebook what a big Obama supporter I am.
Isn't is part of business's job to know who their customers are?
Brandon Eich of Mozilla practiced his 1st amendment right to donate for prop. 8,
and the employees and customers of Mozilla practiced their 1st amendment right
to ask him to step down. World Vision announced that they would
recognize SSM benefits for their employees, and evangelical Christians practiced
their free speech and forced World Vision to reverse their policy. I don't
see this is any different from Brandon Eich's case.Free speech
does not mean free of consequences, Brandon Eich had his, the people who
protested Brandon Eich is having theirs now - criticism that they have gone too
far. I see it as a fair game, after all, free speech is the winner.Why Brandon Eich has to go? Money talks. Mozilla’s employees and
customers are more likely to be young, college educated, and support SSM,
keeping such a controversy around the company has bad impact for Mozilla, it
would be the best for the company that Brandon Eich stepped down.Why
World Vision has to change their policy on gay employees? Money talks. If they
don’t change, the donation would precipitate. In the end, it
is the free market that determines the final outcome.
Prof. Oman:If you had presented at least one example of right wing
groups calling for a boycott because of same-sex marriage issues, you
wouldn't come across as wearing blinders.Here are two
right-wing boycotts that you can tut-tut about if you wish:The
boycott against World Vision for agreeing to employ people in same sex
marriages.The boycott against Guinness for their decision not to
sponsor New York's non inclusive St. Patrick's Day Parade.
WOW, the comments on this article criticizing a call for civility are out of
control.The hypocrisy and childish logic is unbelievable.Certainly Boycotting a company is within our constitutional rights.But
when was it OK or in our best interests to commit economic terrorism because
someone disagrees with your views.It never was and never will be
regardless of your political cause or moral issue.it is not and never will
be OK to bully people to get your way it isn't OK to justify bad
behavior because someone else did it first. In my opinion it is just
as much a hate crime to persecute someone for their religious belief, to harm
someone for exercising their constitutional right to support a cause they
believe in, to attempt to punish people economically because they disagree with
your morals, or to try to force someone to think like you do in an attempt to
get your way. I agree with the premise of this article. We are in a
lot of hurt as a society if things don't get better. To justify harming
someone because you think you have been harmed is hypocrisy. Repent. Dialogue
rather than Damage.
Don't forget conservatives boycotting Disney when they began offering
benefits to same sex couples.And more recently (3/3/14):Conservatives vowed to boycott at least five major companies based in Georgia
for their roles in killing legislation they say would have allowed private
businesses to decline on religious grounds to serve people they believe are gay
or having premarital sex. Supporters of the bill specifically blamed the
Coca-Cola Co., Delta Air Lines, Home Depot, InterContinental Hotels and UPS for
its failure. Those companies had come out against the bill, claiming such a law
would hurt business and cost jobs.
So to sum up - businesses refusing to serve LGBT individuals/couples = good;
LGBT and Allies refusing to do business with those companies = bad.How does that even pretend to make sense?
It is one thing to boycott a large corporation with enormous resources. Large,
ponderous corporate bureaucracies need intense pressure to get their attention.
It is quite another to blacklist people and attempt to destroy their
ability to make a living because you disagree about their political choices of
the past or their desire to follow what they see are their religious
obligations. This tactic serves no ends but personal revenge. Real love and
tolerance for diversity are damaged by such tactics. The Golden Rule applies to
individuals, not so much for corporations.
Would Mr. Oman say the same for boycotting companies for CEOs who donated money
to those opposed to civil rights for blacks? Where would we be today as a
society if not for the many boycotts for civil rights for blacks? Civil Rights
leaders, John Lewis for example, and the Supreme Court has ruled, that marriage
is a basic human right. That said.I would urge a little more
discretion on using the tool of boycotts and calling for resignations.
I've not seen any evidence Mr. Eich made public pronouncements of his
opposition to same-sex marriage. Yes, he donated to Prop 8, an extremely modest
amount. I know people who donated to Prop 8 who've come to regret that
donation. I'm not aware of any policies he implemented or intended to
implement as CEO that would be discriminatory against LGBTs and he affirmed that
position. The fight for equality for LGBTs is relatively new, and there may be
more, even Mr. Eich, who will change their views over time. As long as people
don't discriminate in conducting public business I believe we could cut
some slack. For now.
Pretty simply, the entire "Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone, so you
should support it" reasoning has been obliterated. Yes, you can boycott,
try to punish those who oppose you, of course. But the SSM advocates have no
room to claim that it is a harmless practice anymore: Either you support it and
firing all who oppose it, or you support letting people keep their jobs.Put bluntly: the gays have given me a fantastic, non "bigoted"
reason to oppose them: I want to keep my job. And my wife and family members
want to keep their jobs. And the gays, apparently, want to fire and punish
everyone who disagrees with them.So, is wanting to keep my job a
bigoted reason now? I was in a discussion with one gay marriage supporter who
said his end goal is to make it child abuse to teach Christianity to your
children, and that he and his friends are driving society to that stage.
Stopping him from taking my children seems to be a valid reason.
To all those commenting about the right boycotting over political views: True, that did happen. So are you saying that two wrongs make a right?
Or is it that LGBT rights are a "justifiable" reason to boycott becasue
you agree with them? Just trying to understand the exact hypocrisy you ae
engaging in...All the talk from the LGBT about their "right"
to happiness rings very hollow when they resort to economic terrorism to destroy
that same right for others...
Re: "Gay marriage boycotts are not good for the market economy"The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies would agree. It makes it very, very
difficult for them to conduct inter-State commerce. No gay (or gay supportive)
employee is ever going to want to be transferred into a non-equal State.Heck, even the Indiana (!!!) State Chamber of Commerce agrees. (Yes, I
@ RedWings,RE: "All the talk from the LGBT about their
"right" to happiness rings very hollow when they resort to economic
terrorism to destroy that same right for others..."Sorry, but
expecting to be served equally in the public, secular square is hardly
@ anotherviewI hear what you’re saying: Let’s not
railroad people. Let’s make sure we have good cause. But I hesitate at
“cutting some slack” for a few reasons. One, I’m not sure
this is a good idea BEFORE the law is settled (hopefully in LGBT's favor).
And two, each time someone calls for patience, delay, cutting some slack, I
think about the real harm that is being caused right now – today –
and that will be caused tomorrow and the day after that until we gain equal
status for all. I mostly think of the kids whose own parents look upon them as
if they’re abhorrent. I know how this feels (though for different
reasons), and I remember how desperately I hoped for the world to step in and
protect me. One day could have made such a difference.So I just
can’t in good conscience cut people like Mr. Eich slack. Not yet. It
sounds like it is very likely that he treats everyone well, but that harmful
belief is there and children are not yet protected against it. Let’s
protect them first.
Speaking of boycotts, let's 'focus' on "One Million Moms"
(who are actually more like 64,000 in number - isn't bearing false witness
a 'sin' anymore?) who call for them all the time.
If Mozilla engaged in direct discrimination of a protected minority, then the
corporation deserves to be boycotted. If an employee of Mozilla
engaged in direct discrimination of a protected minority, then publicly call him
down for it. If a citizen of the United States contributed to a
political party or issue and/or spoke out in its favor, that should be an
So let us take the boycott argument to the next step. Let's say that the
Gay Marriage people or the animal rights people or the pro or anti abortion
people take offense, not at the opinions of the CEO, but at those of the Vice
President of Company? Are you comfortable if he is forced out of his position?
After all, he is also an executive of the company and should be equally
targeted, right?And if the Vice Presidents are vulnerable, what
about the managers underneath them? Sure, they are not the public face of the
company, but they probably make all of the hiring and firing decisions.And if you have targeted the managers, what about the rank and file? They are
really the true voice and culture of a company. You wouldn't want to buy
anything from any company that would employ 'that' kind of person, now
would you?So where does it stop, in the end? At what point do
realize that we have found ourselves back in 1692?
Is making a political donation to a cause that the person believes in a valid
cause to terminate someone's employment? Is boycotting a business that
believes in a certain social or religious belief the right thing to do?Being consistent in your answers to these questions is important, but
doesn't appear necessary - since the reality is "it depends on the
cause."Listen to that prompting. Ask yourself, "is it
right?" Do the right thing. Do it with kindness. Do to others as you would
have done to you. Wouldn't it be better to do the right thing than demand
2 tell the truth:How exactly was Mozilla's CEO treating LGBT
customers differently? All he did was donate privately to a political cause he
believed in. It wasn't even news until almost 6 years later!!LGBT boycotts have been about punishing those they do not agree with rather
than "equal access" to consumer goods. For example, Chik-Fil-A never
denied a gay person a chicken sandwich - their owner just expressed his
religious beliefs on a religious program and was viciously attacked (by several
elected officals no less).Reason and open dialog on both sides would
make this a less volatile issue. It is the extemists who just want to fight...
Re:KarenI appreciate your thoughts. But I guess we wiil have to
agree to disagree. Is the immediate goal to change policies and practices
or is it to make sure everybody agrees with us?I simply believe in picking
and choosing battles. I think it important to press against those who practice
or advocate for discrimination in the public square against gays, and I would
also press against those CEOs who make it a point to publically express their
personal bias against gays. But I don't think it is productive
at this point in time to root out every person who hasn't yet jumped on the
bandwagon for LGBT equality. A measure of honey is often better than vinegar.
I don't think the all or nothing approach facilitates the fight for
equality. I think often it can have the opposite effect--hardening and
energizing the opposition.
When my wife decided to go to law school her final choices were William and Mary
or Cardozzo, she choose wisely when she decided not to go to William and Mary. I
would be very angry if this was the level of discourse she learned. As others
have pointed out this "reasoning " is very thin. It lacks true
perspective of the issues and those involved.
This article would be better if more of it was true and less was slanted
opinion.A-- Mr Eich needed to resign because he could not lead. You
can't be the leader of people who are mostly offended by a past action you
do not retract. Prop 8 caused a world of hurt to many million Californians, and
the man's face symbolized that. He was not willing to say that Prop 8 was
wrong, in 2014, so he had to go -- period!-- the closest I can come to an
example for DN readers would be the US Army sending a commandant to Utah 150
years ago who had previously led forces against Midwest mormons.B--
I am in Portland. The businesses had a bit of a publicity hit for controversial
statements, but they will be fine. Oman has the facts wrong again.The rest of the article is a standard sermon we have heard before and
can't argue against.I believe it is totally against Jesus and
Christianity to portray these disagreements in such slanted terms. No one is
being ruined due to his opinion, but some people have damaged themselves by the
inappropriate expression of their opinion or religion.
@ anotherviewThanks. Have my own reservations about Mozilla events.
Have read everything in attempt to clarify thoughts. First, strongly disagree
with outing. Unfortunately can't un-know something. Thus Executive
Officer's lament that she should have recognized that this knowledge would
make a difference in how Mozilla was seen when Eich was promoted to CEO.Also, in interview before resignation, Eich said he would not comment on
his "political" views. Not "religious." Political. Sounded
dismissively impersonal to me. Think of gay kids watching this - maybe some
that know Eich. "Nothing personal, kid. I'll treat you well to your
face, but will act to deny you the right I enjoy: to marry and have a family.
But again - nothing personal. Political." Chilling.So I remain
glad that kids saw the world protesting his appointment to a position of status
and leadership. They need to see that we recognize their full humanity and that
we will fight for it. Am now also glad they saw unease with the tactic that
ultimately brought this about. I don't support this either.
Can I say something without offending people? It is old! I am gay and almost 50!
Time does go by fast! I grew up Mormon and it was good. I had so many wonderful
people around me and lately, that is what I have been trying to remember and
think about! People do not realize what it is like. All of my family and most
friends are Mormon. Almost all of the people I work with are Mormon. In order to
have good relationships, I have to deal with , not just one person, but many!
This is every day! I have to live my life and many times, it doesn't matter
what you do, somebody has to put you in your place, they just have to let you
know how wrong you are! I think I have reached a turning point! Same sex
marriage, for us, is not about proving anything to others. It is about our lives
and wanting to make things better for ourselves. To watch people get so upset
and go crazy finding a way to slam us down again is ridiculous! When do people
stop! I am so tired. tell me, why should I try anymore?
@RedWings: "For example, Chik-Fil-A never denied a gay person a chicken
sandwich - their owner just expressed his religious beliefs on a religious
program and was viciously attacked (by several elected officals no
less)."The CEO of Chik-fil-A donated many thousands of dollars
to groups opposed to Gay marriage in specific and Gay rights in general. Some of
these groups have been designated "hate groups" by the SCLC based on
regularly repeating and publishing information proven to be untrue. When called on his support of these groups he defended it on several
occasions. Yes, he takes Gay dollars at the sales counter. But his money
supports causes that harm people.
Well let's see: There's a conservative organization called
OneMillionMoms that routinely organizes boycotts against companies that DARE to
support fair treatment for Gay Americans. Here's a list companies that have
incurred their wrath (and why):Honey Maid Graham Crackers (for
including Gay parents in a commercial)Disney Channel (for including Gay
parents in the show "Good Luck Charlie")Macy's (for having a
musical number from "Kinky Boots" during their Thanksgiving Parade)ABC Family Television (for a Lesbian couple in the show "The
Fosters")Disney World (for allowing "Gay Day" at the theme
park)J.C. Penney (for having a Gay male couple included in a Father's
Day sale ad)Kraft Foods (for an Oreo Cookie depicted in an ad with rainbow
colored fillings)DC Comics and Marvel comics (for depicting Gay
superheroes)Macy's (for depicting a wedding cake with a "Two
Grooms" cake topper)And this is an example of just ONE
organization that promotes boycotts of companies and sponsors because they
believe in fair treatment for Gay individuals and couples. There are many
Hang in there RFLASH, the times are a changin'. There is a current flurry
of bitterness and discomfort because of those changes, but history tells us that
it will soon be socially unacceptable to treat gay people badly and everyone
will deny (or be mortified) that they ever did.
Some people are so hypocritical on this topic (on both sides).The
article (which I though supported using boycotts) states the following...
"Markets thrive on freedom of contract and that freedom must include the
right not to contract".Where was this opinion when some business
owners wanted to decide who they would contract with? I'm talking about
the tee shirt company not wanting to make an offensive tee shirt for a client,
baker deciding not to contract to make a cake for a gay wedding, etc...===IF "Markets thrive on freedom of contract and that freedom
must include the right not to contract"... does that only apply to LGBT
protesters calling for boycotts?Or does it go both ways?
@Wonder,I think once the current flurry of bitterness and discomfort is
over... people will realise that people who defended traditional marriage
weren't out to hurt gay people, they just wanted to keep the traditional
family alive in America. They didn't really treat gay people badly.
SOME have... but the vast majority didn't.
Just remember, Eich shows that the gay movement is out to punish those who
disagree. So you must care; there's no "live or let live"
anymore--it's convert or die with them. Just look at
anotherviews comment: It's not productive "right now" to drive out
the unbelievers. Implying that soon, it will be. So I'm not
bigoted against gays, I'm protecting my right to have a job. That's
I never heard that Mr. Eich's was fired by a the "gay community."
I wonder how I missed that?
VanceoneProvo, UT"Just remember, Eich shows that the gay
movement is out to punish those who disagree. So you must care; there's no
"live or let live" anymore--it's convert or die with them."---Victimhood at its worst! Those who do damage (contribute
to causes that block rights) and those who inappropriately bring up their
religion without realizing they are rude ("I'm a Christian, so I wont
do your wedding because the Bible is against it and you are sinning") need
to pay the consequences.Think of someone working in SLC who tells
his co-workers that the lds church is based on a scam, in his opinion, and he is
working to get its tax exemptions removed.
From the author's personal web page:........I earned a BA
in political science from Brigham Young University and JD from Harvard Law
School, where I was on the Articles Committee of the Harvard Law Review. Prior
to law school I worked on the staff of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
After law school, I clerked for the Honorable Morris Sheppard Arnold on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and practiced law in the Washington, DC
office of Sidley Austin LLP.Finally, as a life-long Latter-day
Saint, I am interested in the scholarly study of Mormonism, particularly Mormon
legal experience, which is part of my interest in law and religion. Having been
bitten by the blogging bug in law school, I contribute to Concurring Opinions, a
popular law blog, and Times & Seasons, a group blog on Mormon issues......Why are all the opinion articles on the DN from one side?
RE: "those who inappropriately bring up their religion without realizing
they are rude ... need to pay the consequences.WOW... What are the
"Consequences"? Sounds kinda ominous... like a threat.===So... are we going to ban people from working? Just at
certain companies... or should the "Consequences" be getting banned from
working in general?If your going to fire people for donating to
political campaigns you don't like... can you really object to getting
fired because the boss doesn't like YOUR non-work related activities?
Like supporting or attending gay rallies and stuff like that?If
one's OK... so is the other. So be careful what you ask for...If you push to fire a guy for his views... you can't then ask for
protection from being fired for your views.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTNice try -- but read my earlier
comment, where I explain that claiming that we say people ought to be fired for
their views is a complete lie.I personally have had a
"Christian" tell me he had to disagree with my preacher's
interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount because "I am a Christian"