Front page of LA times....gay $$$ are getting their attention!

[ellius101]

Proposition 8 protesters target businesses

Activists who oppose the ban on gay marriage are boycotting businesses whose employees or owners contributed money to the Yes on 8 campaign.

By Tami Abdollah and Cara Mia DiMassa
November 14, 2008

More than a week after the passage of Proposition 8, activists opposed to the ban on gay marriage have shifted their protests to new arenas -- using boycotts to target businesses and individuals who contributed to the winning side.

The effect of the boycotts remains unclear. Merchants said that the overall poor economy made it difficult to tell whether their businesses were declining specifically because of the threats. But the protests have been highly visible and have drawn strong objections from backers of the initiative.

"No matter your opinion of Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process," Ron Prentice, of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement. Boycotters were "unabashedly trampling on the rights of others," he said.

Activists behind the boycott effort argue they are simply exercising their political rights.

"People are determining who their friends are, and who are not their friends," said Fred Karger, a Los Angeles resident and retired political consultant. "I think people need to be held accountable for their financial support."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boycott14-2008nov14,0,7176761.story

[mondo joe]

1. Why does Ron Prentice think his friends have a RIGHT (his word) to our $?

They have no right to our purchases.

[Jamastiene]

2. Looks to me like Ron Prentice needs to take that log out of his own eye.

It is them, not us, who are "unabashedly trampling on the rights of others." We are simply exercising our freedom to shop where we damn well please. They have no RIGHT to our business.

What next Proposition 9, only homophobic businesses are allowed to have customers? How silly.

They need to get real. Actions have consequences.

[mondo joe]

3. I honestly can't get over this - they think they have the right to our business. As if

we're just cogs in their business plan rather than free citizens.

[bluedawg12]

7. I like to think of it as "economic sanctions"

a time honored diplomatic tool when other forms of diplomacy with thugs fail. Maybe that would make rw trickle down economic theory advocates feel better? :sarcasm:

[bluedawg12]

6. Oh gawd- don't give them any ideas

or they'll start passing laws prohibiting gays from voting, owning property and adopting pets.

I can see it now: Prop9. :argh:

Seriously, Jamastiene makes a good point, taking away one right can snowball into other rights and they have already conflated adoption and foster parenting laws with same sex marriage rights.

[Jamastiene]

13. I think that is what they are trying to do, honestly.

Once they start taking away some rights, they'll go for others. And when they get finished taking our rights away, the next minority group will be next on their "to do" list. If we give them an inch, they will take a mile. They have shown the propensity to do that time and again.

[iamahaingttta]

4. That line got me too.

It jumped right out at the screen at me:

"Boycotters were 'unabashedly trampling on the rights of others...'"

What amazingly bold intellectual dishonesty!
A mind that can say something like that, is a mind that is dealing with so many unresolved contradictions as to be practically useless inside whatever head happens to be carrying it around.

He also said that boycotters were "intimidating" "churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process."
Holy Fucking Shit!
Can you believe the cajones on some of these Jesus People?

Remarkable...

[bluedawg12]

9. Notice the clever bull sh*t meistering and spin?

Passive action, i.e., boycotting, which is simply not doing something, is conflated with an act of aggression like "trampling." Looks like repug pollster Frank Luntz has been busy focus-group testing words again to select the best ones for disinformation.

>>boycotters were "intimidating" "churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process."<<

Boycotting is not intimidating.
How does one boycott individuals?
The best one is: boycotting because people voted and not how people voted?

The "party of responsibility" - the repugs/rw - sure can't step up and be accountable for their actions, can they?

He conflated protesting which could be seen as intimidating with passive boycotting.

How does passive resistence and the right to chose how we spend out money equate with another's right to participate in the democratic process?

Not at all. It is just more rw spin doctoring.

[cboy4]

5. Yea, I already posted this article.

:eyes:

:P

[Kerrytravelers]

8. When I read that this morning in the paper, I could not belive all the boo-hoo by the Yes on 8 bigot

What did they expect? I think once Ms. Rosa Parks got the ball rolling by sitting down, the rest of the Black population stood up. Did they expect the LGBT community to just lie down and take it? Perhaps they should pick up a history book and check out they way things happen. That is, of course, after they finish a basic biology book in which they learn that being gay is as much of a choice as being left-handed.

What they hell is wrong with these people? (Rhetorical, of course. There is so much wrong with these people, DU doesn't have the bandwidth to list it all.)

[bluedawg12]

10. The boycott must be working!

That's why Hate8 organizers have to get out there and spin - imagine angry business owenrs coming back at them and saying: "Hey, I donated to your f*cking cause and now my business is suffering, not another penny next time."

That also explains diluting the boycott effect by saying: we dodn't know if it's the economy or the gays...but let us start complaining about the gays.

They want to complain about the boycott and deny it's effect.

pigs.

[MineralMan]

11. A Simple Boycott

Is not enough. For these boycotts to work properly, the business owners who financed the Yes on Prop 8 ammendment need to know that people are not patronizing them because of their support for that proposition.

This can be done by actually visiting the business, especially if you are a former customer, and telling the owner why you will no longer patronize his/her business.

It can also be done by publicizing the name of the business and its support for the referendum in local media.

In the case of businesses who use the internet to sell products or services, blogging can work, especially on popular, well-attended blogs.

Picketing doesn't work that well, since it's a short-term thing.

Boycotts are tools that have been used by anti-lgbt forces for a very long time. Turning the tables on them will actually have an effect.

[Phredicles]

12. So now "trampling on the rights of others" is bad?

I mean, what's the fun of picking on people if they get to fight back?:eyes::sarcasm::eyes:

[Kerrytravelers]

15. bwwwaaaahhhh... snort... bwwwaaaahhhhh... woohooo... bwwwwaaaahhh... snort... hehehehehehehehe

:rofl:

Well said. Looks like bashing the gays isn't as much fun as it use to be. Boo-hoo.

[Howardx]

14. they fear the boycott

this weeks news stories prove that.