Should we boycott gay businesses?

reply to post by detachedindividual


a religious group not promoting something they see as wrong is not imposign their belief. Its like reducing criminal sentences. not along the same beliefs.

Hmm let me think for a moment.

A group of people who had marriage taken away from them are angry at those who took it away from them. So now they target those who did.

Well let me ask you this. If someone took away your ability to Marry would you not react the same?

Okey Dokey then.

So I would say boycotting Gay business is only going to highlight the bigotry more and that would not be so bright but hey Humans are not the brightest bulbs you know.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Helmkat]

This whole thing is absurd. Churches boycott whenever they don't get what they want as well. In 2005 the Southern Baptists finally called off a 9 year boycott of Disney because they offered benefits to gay couples.

BMW when moving to South Carolina had to face the wrath of churches because their hiring policy specifically said they wouldn't accept intolerance to sexual orientation.

It's the same thing.

If I had to boycott known gay owned businesses in the area I suspect that at most I would be avoiding going to the club and a few hair salons. Trying to boycott all the companies in the area that are anti-gay would be like trying to boycott oxygen.

I would like to know as well with all these rants about gays taking away heterosexual rights which of those rights would those be because I haven't heard anything specific?

I have already been boycotting businesses owned by Prop 8 supporters.

Curious as to who supported Prop 8?

www.sfgate.com...

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Jim, you know what else is backed by thousands of years of history? the treatment of women like property. I assume (hope I am right) that you are not proposing that we begin treating women like property. So how come you get to pick and chose which parts of that history are good and which are not?

I'll tell you how: by using your own *subjective* sense of what is moral. Don't pretend that your position is merely an unbiased reflection of thousands of years of history.

-rrr

I respect and love women. I have several decendents that are women, and a wife. I would never suggest that women lose their equal rights. I do not pick and choose. Historical treatment of women was good in some societies, and bad in others. Hey, there were amazons. And check out the Samoans. Women rule. Just depends on your neighborhood. It's not all bad historically.

What is considered moral. Well, that is the bottom line. How do we determine what is moral and immoral? Is it situation ethics? Situation morality? Because someone wants a "right" I should never refuse them that "right" because to do so would make me an oppressor? So I am mistreating someone if I don't let them do what they want? I am sure this is one of the great arguments, and I can't solve it on this thread. I confess. However, isn't it my moral right to refuse a moral right if I want to? Situation ethics demands that I have the right to decide for myself how I want to act in any situation. If I apply your line of reasoning, how can you refuse me this right? Or how can you challenge my use of my own personal liberty? There is the point at which the two beliefs butt heads. That's why we have ballots, not bullets, and allow the majority to determine our general civilized morals. Someone is always offended. The point of this thread is how far they take the offense. If they want to take extreme, but legal, measures like boycotting businesses, getting people fired, etc. then that is going too far, don't you think? If I suggested you fire a black man from his job because he is black, you would be offended. If I suggest firing an anti-gay man from his job because he is anti-gay, would you not be offended? That happened in Sacramento after the defeat of Prop 8. Gays got the anti-gay guy fired. After 25 years helping Sacramento entertainment, the entertainment gays said, in so many words, that he shouldn't be working in the industry because he is anti-gay and most of it is gay personnel. Are you ok with that? If not, why not turn it around on the gays. That's all I am asking. Turnabout is fair play. If you have a gay in an industry that is predominantly not gay, why shouldn't he or she lose their job? If you have a pro-gay business that is notably pro-gay, why not boycott it? Gays are boycotting anti-Prop 8 businesses. Fair is fair. Let's see how long they can hold out. The vast majority of society is not gay, and not anti-gay either, but they can be pushed too far.

Originally posted by Helmkat
Hmm let me think for a moment.

A group of people who had marriage taken away from them are angry at those who took it away from them. So now they target those who did.

Well let me ask you this. If someone took away your ability to Marry would you not react the same?

Okey Dokey then.

So I would say boycotting Gay business is only going to highlight the bigotry more and that would not be so bright but hey Humans are not the brightest bulbs you know.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Helmkat]

Actually, the marriage was never given to them by the people. It was given by some democratic judges. The people voted against it. So, to counteract the misguided judges, the people voted again. This time, to stop the judges from doing it again, the people voted to make it a constitutional amendment.
So, we didn't take anything away, as a general citizenry. If the democrats would stop playing the judges, no one would be getting "unmarried" today.

Bigotry is used as an offensive buzz word in the struggle for gay rights, as is prejudice, discrimination, etc. Let's see what it means.
Def. of bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a biot. Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or race that is not his own.

Would you also say that the gay activists are bigots? Do they practice bigotry? So, if the shoe fits..... Namecalling and boycotts and all that are only going to hurt both sides. They started it, they need to stop it. The gay organizations are founded on principles of hate, by their own statements. I don't like that. Does that make me the bigot? You decide....

Originally posted by MeanDirtyKiller
Jim, the gay population are the minority here. That's the difference.

I wish I could give negative stars.

I see. Because one group is the minority that gives them a free pass to propagate hate.

Huh. I guess then by your argument the KKK is totally free to propagate their hate and you should give them a break for it because they are also a minority.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
On the other hand, you are confusing some of my statements with those of the other posters. I did not begin the Nazi comparison. Please review the posts. That being said, the Nazis were singling out businesses. So are the gays. That's about it for similarities. Sorry if that is offensive, but, like I said, I didn't bring up the Nazis.

posted on 2-12-2008 @ 01:25 PM
Your post from page 8 of the thread in case you would like to review.

Originally posted by Jim Scott

I'm not a Mormon, but I don't want to wait until this gets on my doorstep and I am the only one left. That's what happened when the Nazis took over Germany. Remember?

Like I said, best wishes and I hope you figure out the root of your fears and find a more peacful future.

reply to post by maybereal11


Well, somehow you missed the Nazi photo on page one that started the Nazi talk. I did not start it. Thanks for your opinion, tho.

Originally posted by sos37
I see. Because one group is the minority that gives them a free pass to propagate hate.

Propagate? Interesting you would use that word. Let's look at it:

Onelook:

verb: transmit from one generation to the next ("Propagate these characteristics")
▸ verb: multiply sexually or asexually
▸ verb: cause to propagate, as by grafting or layering
▸ verb: transmit or cause to broaden or spread ("This great civilization was propagated throughout the land")
▸ verb: transmit ("Propagate sound or light through air")
▸ verb: become distributed or widespread
▸ verb: cause to become widely known



Now if you look at modern history, which side of this equation seems more apropos?

Apropos:

adjective: of an appropriate or pertinent nature

Gays spreading hate OR reacting to the hatred they have had to live with their whole lives?

Let me bump some outside refs that have been on this post so you can see the intentions of the gay community toward anti-gay marriage supporters etc.

www.sfgate.com...

This clearly points out the dividing line between pro and con on gay marriage and who specifically supported Prop 8 and who specifically supported the fight against Prop 8. Now why, do you think, this site is called sfgate? Maybe because it is located in San Francisco? Now why is this information posted? I hope you are using your common sense here.

www.foxnews.com...

Gays have drawn a battle line against supporters of Prop 8, in this case the Mormons.

jointheimpact.wetpaint.com...

Gays have drawn a battle line to get attention, and it may affect you if you own a business employing gays.

Ok, so am I the bad guy here?

Originally posted by Jim Scott

it seems like you are boiling in you're own oil now. What did you expect by making a thread like this ? you can't expect of people to share all you're views. You divided people in groups. So instead of starting a rage speech against gay people, you actually made yourself into a target.
congrats

1. Too many posts are off-topic. I am trying to keep them on topic.
2. I never expect everyone to share my views or your views.
3. I never started a rage speech. I suggested we return the same type of attention the gay people are sharing with us. Is that bad? If it is bad, then attack the gay people, not me. I didn't start it.

There you are. You're spending so much time by defending you're self against evryone who challenge you. In that case i guess that you accept whose who does not share you're views.
Because you did not start it does not mean that returning it make it right. That means you ain't better you're self.
You can't keep on saying "they" started it. Who are they ? may be the Nazis as well, remember. You can't change the past so why not change from today ? If not :
die by the sword

Gays spreading hate OR reacting to the hatred they have had to live with their whole lives?

You know, I really see your point, and you are right. It is a reaction that is justified. However, is it right? I see the same problem, of a sort, in the middle east between Israel and the Palestinians. They are Semitic brothers, yet they kill each other. They keep killing each other because someone killed their friend or relative yesterday, and so on and on.....

In this OP, the thrust has been to stop the hate. I believe the gay people have problems with their sexual orientation. It's ok, keep it at home. I don't need my grandkids educated about it. If they keep it at home, nobody will know anyway. Now, in the case of blacks and women as previously posted, they can't keep it at home. So, please, keep it at home. Admit they are sexually perverted, immoral, and leave it at that. Be happy, content, and keep it at home. Don't bother me with trying to change rules that are ten thousand+ years old. Stop pushing your practices into my face for my approval. I don't do that to you. [for flamers: you, them, etc refers to homosexuals] If you want to boycott businesses, churches, etc. the same can come back on you. Unitarian Universalists fought Prop 8. I don't see tons of Prop 8 supporters attacking them, do you?

Oh for Christsake. If we boycott gay business where is that going to leave us?

Straight clothes designers? We will all be wearing denim.

Straight interior decorators? We will all have urinals in the bathroom. (maybe not so bad)

Straight sitcom writers? They will be as funny as the military channel.

Straight artists? Oohh. Pictures of warships and tanks. Cool.

Straight boy bands? Linebackers and computer geeks. The preteens will not like it.

Straight mega church ministers? Church is no fun without the drama of your minister outing himself with a male prostitute while on crack.

Straight flight attendants? Sit down &shut up or I will beat the *Snip* out of you.
Whats a flight without a wisecracking pissed off queen.

Straight florists? Heres a cactus. Water it once a year.

Straight Navy? Whos gonna man the subs? You think you're gonna get a couple hundred straight guys to stay underwater for 6months? Think again.

Straight priests? Yeah right. As if the vatican will ever be straight.

Just food for thought?

Mod Edit: Do Not Evade The Automatic Censors


[edit on 2-12-2008 by MemoryShock]

Because you did not start it does not mean that returning it make it right. That means you ain't better you're self.
You can't keep on saying "they" started it. Who are they ? may be the Nazis as well, remember. You can't change the past so why not change from today ? If not : die by the sword

Ok, I don't know that this means. Are you suggesting it is wrong to defend my points, because defending them makes me no better than someone?

They, them, etc. always refers to gay activists whenever referring to the anti-Prop 8 crowd. I hope I have been consistent in this in the past 40 posts; but, thank you for asking. Someone else was also unclear what we have been talking about for the past 6 hours. Oh, well. Welcome aboard.

Gay businesses?

Gay businesses cater to gays, so boycotting them wouldn't do anything because you weren't giving them your business to begin with.

Must idiotic plan I've ever heard.

Unless you're insinuating people should go on a gay hunt and not support any business that happens to be operated or have gay workers. That would work about as well as boycotting gas prices by not buying gas, though. In short, it wouldn't work.

reply to post by Jim Scott
I suggest reading up on them there Mormons.They are well known for their pacifist behavior.......until you really piss them off by threatening them.In their early years the us army was sent by the govt to round em up for their polygamist ways only to have weapons drawn by the whole community (all peaceloving people!).For the first time in history the govt troops Had to back down!Saying no is also their right so live and let live.....the alternative may not be so pleasant!

Originally posted by davion
Gay businesses?

Gay businesses are businesses owned by gays, not necessarily just catering to gays. For example, a friend of mine worked in a beauty salon in Sacramento. She had a great job for years there. Then the salon was sold to a gay man. He then hired a gay man. The two gay men harassed her until she left. Now the business is owned and operated by a gay man. He, however, caters to both gay and non-gay.

Originally posted by Bnmssnit
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

I suggest reading up on them there Mormons.They are well known for their pacifist behavior.......until you really piss them off by threatening them.In their early years the us army was sent by the govt to round em up for their polygamist ways only to have weapons drawn by the whole community (all peaceloving people!).For the first time in history the govt troops Had to back down!Saying no is also their right so live and let live.....the alternative may not be so pleasant!

True Mormons are not polygamists since 1895 or so. Their church changed those rules. The splinter groups that live in outlying areas, like the one mentioned, are willfully disobedient to state laws. They should be prosecuted. However, the cost of prosecution of so many is difficult for the state to handle. In the case you cited above, the families were returned because of that. I think you will find the same thing happen in Texas after awhile.
As far as pacifists, one of the few Medal of Honor winners in Viet Nam was a Mormon. Some of our greatest Generals are Mormon. I don't think they could be ruled pacifists. Quite the contrary. They, like you, will, however, defend their families. That's just human nature. Right? Can't fault them for that part. However, they shouldn't have started that polygamy practice.


[edit on 2-12-2008 by Jim Scott]

reply to post by Jim Scott


So effectively you'd be saying to that business, "I'm not going to support your business because you're gay and you work there, and because of the climate dealing with Prop 8 you're going to suffer for it even though you might not care about Prop 8"

Yeah that sounds great.