Should companies run by individuals who donated to efforts to pass anti-gay marriage initiatives be boycotted? What about businesses that contract with a service provider whose chief executive supported an anti-gay marriage initiative? The L.A. Times looks at the dispute between holding those accountable who work to denys us equal rights vs. punishing individuals for exercising their rights to free speech and to support political causes that reflect their personal values.
The story asks, "Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported [California's] Proposition 8?" Given that many of the examples involve the film industry and California-based arts organizations, the question alludes to the belief among Hollywood liberals that refusing to hire people who defended and provided agitprop on behalf of Stalin during the height of the Gulag shall forever remain an unpardonable offense. Or was it that they just felt the government had no right to inquire about and make public one's membership in the Communist Party? Tricky questions, these.
Added: Okay, I'll be less namby-pamby and take a stand: Given a choice, I'd avoid purchasing from, or otherwise doing business with, a company whose top executive wrote a personal check to support an anti-gay initiative. Even if they are not owners of privately held firms, their compensation is tied to the company's revenues and profits; when my dollars go to their competitors, they ultimately have fewer cents to donate to causes that seek to deny us equal treatment by the state. That these companies might internally treat gay workers on par with nongay workers doesn't sway me.
Law Suits that Over-Reach
Another item in the news doesn't concern a boycott but a discrimination suit that forced eHarmony.com to provide services to gays seeking same-sex matches. The fact that the suit succeeded is no cause for joy; it opens the door to all sorts of mischief via the misuse of the American legal system.
What about forcing gay-exclusive dating services to provide matches for heterosexuals? Or using the power of the state to force a service that specializes in matches among Jewish people to go non-denominational?
As David Bernstein, who teaches constitutional law at George Mason Univeristy, tells the Wall Street Journal, the discrimination claim "seems like quite a stretch." Morever, we ought to be wary of giving social conservatives justification for denouncing the LGBT movement as authoritarian. It's one thing, after all, to make a decision to boycott, or even to organize a boycott, and quite another to enlist the state to remake private businesses to conform to a governmental model of engineered social equality.
When rights are in conflict, erring on the side of liberty over "equality" is always a good bet.
6 Comments for “Whose Rights Are Righter?”
posted by Mike on
The eHarmony suit is incredibly dumb, and really trivializes what anti-discrimination laws should be used for.
Forcing eHarmony to build a “ghetto” gay site benefits nobody.
The proper solution is that eHarmony should have simply added (or been required to add) an obvious disclaimer to their site, stating that it was designed for heterosexuals only.
posted by John on
I agree that the eHarmony suit was stupid and wrong. The company should have fought this as an attack on their freedom of religion perhaps but definitely on the same grounds BSA did: freedom of association. This settlement did no favors to gays.
As for the boycotts, that’s a personal decision IMO. There are some companies I might boycott if the owner or chief executives donated towards Prop 8, but really don’t care whether employees did or not.
posted by TS on
Damn… eHarmony suit won? Come on, guys! This is kind of like my opinion about condemning Wagner for being an anti-semite. It’s unsurprising that some individuals should hold stupid ideas. But for venerable institutions like courts (or the court of public opinion) to be persuaded by incredibly bad arguments? Sad day indeed.
posted by Casey on
Keep it straight – the e-harmony suit wasn’t decided either way legally, it was settled out of court. Frankly, E-Harmony’s been taking flack on this issue for awhile, with Chemistry.com even using it as an advertising tactic. They decided to make the issue go away, and do so in a way that they can tell their conservative critics it was the gays fault… when really, it’s just smart business.
posted by Bobby on
Eharmony has no business accepting gays just like an s/m dating website has no business accepting prudes.
It’s sad they accepted the settlement. Now gay dollars are gonna go to support a company that has never supported us. This is ridiculous, any gay is free to start gayharmony.com and do his own thing there.
posted by JAGM on
Whether company exectuives decide to support anti-gay initiatives is their right, and that alone will not determine whether or not I patronize their business. As someone who works for a a very large Fortune 500 company, I know that these companies are as diverse as their employees so I do not believe this is a wise strategy to embarrass executives or companies. If the gay community starts to blackmail companies like Rev. Jesse Jackson, it will come back to haunt the community. Of that, I am certain.
This game can be played both ways too. Imagine if large groups of AA, Latinos, or very religious people (groups most opposed to gay marriages) refuse to patronize a company because it finds certain executives are supporting gay rights or supporting gay agendas. It can embarrass these executives into staying neutral and could hurt the careers of gay executives, as well, keeping them in the closet.
There are better ways to bridge gaps than trying to use ridiculing tactics. Remember, though most American’s opinions have changed on gays over the years, the country, including vast amounts of Dems such as AA and Latinos, are not ready to be forced or ridiculed into a ideological position they do not agree with. Just because people do not accept gay marriage as an option does not mean they are homophobes or hateful towards gays. Living in San Francisco, I know many libs that don’t agree with gay marriage and don’t want their children taught it is the same as their traditional marriages but they support gays in most other respects.
These ridiculing tactics on companies may make people feel good at the moment but they always tend to backfire. I saw this recently at my own company where the company decided to donate to the effort to fight Prop 8 in California and sent an email on it to all employees. My understanding is that most reacted negatively to the company’s position because it appeared the company was trying to be PC and the way it communicated its effort offended many. Specifically, the implication was that one should respect others point of view in favor of gay marriage but there was no two-way street on this position, accepting of opinions against gay marriage. This implied that if you did not agree with gay marriage, you were somehow not tolerant and respecting of others.
I was told a number of the officers got an earful on this issue from employees, and rightfully so, because they unnecessarily inserted themselves and the company into this issue in a public manner. I found this offensive myself because the last thing I want is my company telling me how to vote or think…I do not owe them that loyalty. I think the officers may think twice about how they position and communicate their political points in the future…and to that I stay hooray.
So I will do my duty to promote fairness when advocating gay issues but expecting me to boycott companies and subscribe to “groupthink” is not going to happen. There are issues I will support the gay community on, and there will be issues I will not support them on, after I have giving the issue consideration. That is what I believe civic-minded people should do.