Posts tagged Boycott
Posts tagged Boycott
A new app allows you to scan a product in the supermarket aisle and learn who exactly is behind that box of cereal. More impressively, you can join user-created campaigns to boycott groups of companies who may have lobbied against a cause you believe in.
I heard Darcy Burner pitch this last year at Netroots Nation and now it’s a thing! Marvelous!
Sarah Palin, continuing her desperate last gasps of trying be relevant on Fox News.
Typically, I wouldn’t give her more attention. But I’ve heard this argument so many damn times over the few days, so let’s roll.
First, what Dan Cathy said IS anti-gay and he’s donated to anti-gay organizations — groups which have helped the efforts in Uganda to criminalize homosexuality and execute gay people, are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and who have called for harmful “reparative therapy” to be standard treatment for gay people.
Plenty of folks have pointed out that this is not the way to spread a message of love thy neighbor. I would agree. As Suzette Standring wrote, “Jesus healed, socialized, walked, and ate with the marginalized and the flawed. Peter had anger management issues. Matthew was a hated tax collector. The Samaritan woman at the well was considered off limits to talk to for racial reasons. When an adulteress was about to be stoned, it was Jesus who challenged the sinless to cast the first stone. Her attackers left and when it was clear no one stayed to condemn her, Jesus said with great gentleness, ‘Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin’ (John 8:1-11)… If Jesus had harsh words for anyone, it was against those who saw themselves as the authorities of spiritual leadership. He criticized them publicly for hypocrisy, setting bad examples, and for perverting the word of God in order to maintain their own power.”
Second, I know this is difficult, but read this, plus this, this, this, and this. That’s why you’re 100% wrong about boycotts. Boycotts are free speech. Think about money as speech. Withholding money is also speech. It goes both ways. Please see
Less Than One Million Moms and their boycotts against JC Penney, Ellen DeGeneres, and the NBC show The New Normal.
Third, as Meghan McCain said, being anti-marriage equality IS being anti-gay. Is being anti-interracial marriage racist? You betcha.
Fourth, if a business owner gets political, even for religious reasons, expect a backlash. You don’t get to reel back and say, “Hey, no hard feelings, homos. Buy my chicken.” If your chicken gets political, we get political with your chicken. You dig?
In summary, go back to Alaska, snowbilly.
mrpooscratch replied to your post: Dear Conservatives who think they grasp this Jesus thing:
Um, it’s about free speech and people not trying to destroy your business because they disagree with you, NOT homosexuality. Sorry you missed the point.
Nope, sorry. You’re missing the point here. Just as the CEO has his freedom of speech, we have the freedom of speech to boycott his establishments and spread the word about his business practices. In fact, a boycott is a form of free speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to boycott in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. et al. 458 U.S. 886 (1982). The court held that the States have broad power to regulate general economic activities, but cannot prohibit peaceful political activity and organizing. This includes boycotts, which are protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments in regards to freedom of speech and association. Also, within the right to freely associate is the right to demonstrate and align one’s self with the ideals of the association or business — or not.
Also, individuals are not responsible for business losses due a non-violent boycott — even if a business fails. The First Amendment freedoms in a boycott trump the business owner’s success. Claiborne bears striking similarities to issues at the heart of the boycott of Chick-Fil-A. As the Court said in this case, petitioners, “through exercise of their First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, association, and petition, rather than through riot or revolution… sought to change a social order that had consistently treated them as second-class citizens.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, who delivered the majority opinion, wrote:
"The boycott of white merchants at issue in this case took many forms. The boycott was launched at a meeting of a local branch of the NAACP attended by several hundred persons. Its acknowledged purpose was to secure compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice. The boycott was supported by speeches and nonviolent picketing. Participants repeatedly encouraged others to join in its cause. Each of these elements of the boycott is a form of speech or conduct that is ordinarily entitled to protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments."
Also, in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), Chief Justice Warren Burger stated:
"The claim that the expressions were intended to exercise a coercive impact on respondent does not remove them from the reach of the First Amendment. Petitioners plainly intended to influence respondent’s conduct by their activities; this is not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper. Petitioners were engaged openly and vigorously in making the public aware of respondent’s real estate practices. Those practices were offensive to them, as the views and practices of petitioners are no doubt offensive to others. But so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability." [citations omitted]
In other words, even if the goal of the boycott is coercive action against a business entity, the boycott is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as long as it remains non-violent.
Now, beyond the constitutionality of the boycott, isn’t this how the free market is supposed to work? For example, I don’t like the business practices or views of Shop X, and they refuse to change their practices — say, puppy punching for the lulz. I hate puppy punching because it’s hurtful and unnecessary for the business to function. So I organize a boycott. Shop X refuses to quit punching puppies, and eventually closes because others decided of their own volition to stop patronizing the shop.
Diner Y’s owner holds racist beliefs which he voices on community radio. So I organize a boycott. Diner Y closes because people refuse to eat at a place that endorses bigotry.
Chick-Fil-A’s owner actively supports discrimination against GLBTQ people via his free speech (his words and money). So I organize a boycott. The free market has yet to decide on Chick-Fil-A’s fate.
The U.S. Constitution is a beautiful thing.
[Click to zoom]
Remember conservatives! Every time you eat at Chick-Fil-A for Jesus, Chick-Fil-A brings you just a little closer to him. Each of those 1,680 deep-fried calories are tiny steps towards heaven!
Rush Limbaugh loses another advertiser – for now.
Suspending means they haven’t ended the actual ad buys/contract. But really, how would you feel sending flowers on Mother’s Day using a company that condones such hateful statements about women by advertising on Limbaugh’s show?
It’s telling advertisers are still fleeing even after his fauxpology. El Rushbo has a history of giving pseudo mea culpas on those rare occasions he’s issued anything close to an apology.
For the latest, follow StopRush on Twitter. Rush has a history of misogyny and bigotry, and it’s about goddamn time people step up and say enough is enough. If conservatives want to tout the free market, well, let the market punch him where it hurts: Square in the wallet.
As one of my feminist pals put it: Rush, you’ve got 99 problems and they’re all bitches. Why?
Late Friday afternoon, The Huffington Post announced its latest way to get free content from writers. According to Forbes, “The Huffington Post’s best response to those critics who accuse it of exploiting writers by not paying them has always been the libertarian one: Within the boundaries of the law, consenting adults are free to enter into whatever sorts of arrangements they choose, even one that involves donating their labor to a for-profit corporation. But what about when those writers aren’t adults?” Yes, that’s right, kids as young as 13 are being invited to provide content for Patch, which is run by the Huffington Post Media Group.
Today on Advertising Age, “Patch ‘is churning out one piece of content every 9 seconds.’” That’s what this is about, folks: churn. Page views. And getting unpaid children to help AOL shovel content - digital coal - into its page-view oven. Quite simply, AOL/HuffPo intends to monetize the work of minors earning $0/hour. On Patch and HuffPost High School, it will sell ads against content created by minors - but it will not share advertising revenue with those minors.”
The National Writers Union is committed to establishing a living wage for all freelance writers. For more campaign updates, sign up at www.PayTheWriter.org