• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Support the anti-gay boycotts

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Anti Gay Blacklist


This is a list of individuals who donated money to support the hateful anti-gay discriminatory prop 8.

If you patronize any of the individuals on this list, please consider boycotting their establishments.
 
Anti Gay Blacklist


This is a list of individuals who donated money to support the hateful anti-gay discriminatory prop 8.

If you patronize any of the individuals on this list, please consider boycotting their establishments.

Oddly enough:
Paula Barnes / Scheduler, Disneyland / Mission Viejo, CA / $3,000
 
Oddly enough:
Paula Barnes / Scheduler, Disneyland / Mission Viejo, CA / $3,000

Funny....I actually missed that one and I can appreciate the jab.

However, Disney is actually a very gay-friendly company and has been at the forefront of extending benefits to gays.

You have to read between the lines on these boycotts. For instance, I don't call for an entire boycott of the state of Utah, including the Sundance Festival, because the mormon church does not speak for all of Utah.
Ms. Barnes being an employee of Disneyland does not speak for the company, but individual business owners need to be hit where it hurts them the most if they want to support such hateful legislation.
 
Last edited:
Funny....I actually missed that one and I can appreciate the jab.

However, Disney is actually a very gay-friendly company and has been at the forefront of extending benefits to gays.

You have to read between the lines on these boycotts. For instance, I don't call for an entire boycott of the state of Utah, including the Sundance Festival, because the mormon church does not speak for all of Utah.
Ms. Barnes being an employee of Disneyland does not speak for the company, but individual business owners need to be hit where it hurts them the most if they want to support such hateful legislation.

Hmm...so you get to have your boycot, and I get to have my Prop8...ok, deal.
 
Liberal fascism, what?
 
Hmm...so you get to have your boycot, and I get to have my Prop8...ok, deal.

One little problem with that idea Jerry.....Prop8 takes away people's Constitutional rights, boycotts are an exercise of Constitutional rights.
 
One little problem with that idea Jerry.....Prop8 takes away people's Constitutional rights, boycotts are an exercise of Constitutional rights.



Marriage is not a constitutional right. The only thing prop 8 does is preserve traditional marriage.
 
Anti Gay Blacklist


This is a list of individuals who donated money to support the hateful anti-gay discriminatory prop 8.

If you patronize any of the individuals on this list, please consider boycotting their establishments.

Oh good a list of places I should patronize if I ever make a trip to California.
 
That's right.
No one's right has been taken away from them.

I think this is a fruitless endeavor.
But more power to you.

Maybe instead, you should send them each 100lbs of brick... COD.
 
Oh good a list of places I should patronize if I ever make a trip to California.

If you noticed, the vast majority of supporters weren't even from California. That's why we have been saying "keep your hate out of our state".
 
Wrong. Do your homework.

If It is a right then I am sure that you can point to where specifically in the constitution it says that marriage is a right.
 
I don't support a boycott at all. Why punish an organization for the views of its employees? Until Stephen Elgorriaga the Sheep Rancher's anti-gay views start affecting his mutton I see no need to engage in what is basically vengence.
 
If It is a right then I am sure that you can point to where specifically in the constitution it says that marriage is a right.

God....this is getting old. Its impossible to argue with people who act like they know what they are talking about but lack the education.

Start here:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The US Supreme Court recognized that marriage is a fundamental right.
 
I don't support a boycott at all. Why punish an organization for the views of its employees? Until Stephen Elgorriaga the Sheep Rancher's anti-gay views start affecting his mutton I see no need to engage in what is basically vengence.

I don't agree with punishing an organization for the views of its employees, however, where it is an individual business owner.....that type of boycott I would support.

For instance, here in LA, a very popular restaurant "El Coyote" owner donated money. A large percentage of her clientele are gays and progressive Los Angelenos. She is now crying that people are boycotting her.
 
Last edited:
If you noticed, the vast majority of supporters weren't even from California.

Actually the vast majority on that list are in California.
 
I don't agree with punishing an organization for the views of its employees, however, where it is an individual business owner.....that type of boycott I would support.

For instance, here in LA, a very popular restaurant "El Coyote" owner donated money. A large percentage of her clientele are gays and progress Los Angelenos. She is now crying that people are boycotting her.

Unless it affects their business their views are their own as far as I'm concerned.
 
Why would you want to support a business which then uses their profits to help fund discrimination?

If the business donates to anti-gay groups or otherwise supports discrimination I would consider a boycott. If the private citizens use their personal funds to further their political opinions I will take issue with said citizen. There is no point in punishing a business for giving money to somebody who gave money to people who worked to pass Prop 8.
 
There is no Constitutional "right" to marriage, regardless of citing 'Loving'.

There is no 'right' being taken away from those who are homosexual.
They would have to have the 'right' in the first place (which they don't) in order for it to be taken away.

The Court in 'Loving' said:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Clearly the Court distinguished between a Constitutional "freedom" and "basic civil rights of man" in their decision.
They in no way declared it to be a Constitutional 'Right'.
But I can see how some would assume this to be so.

The Court stating that it was "fundamental to our very existence and survival" clearly indicates that marriage, this Constitutional "freedom" and "basic civil rights of man", is between those of the opposite gender.

If the person who provided the Wiki link would have read a little further they would have found that a New York Court of Appeals rejected the idea that 'Loving' applied to same sex couples.


And for those who don't believe gay people can see things any other way than a denial of 'rights', please check out the following blogger.
Gay Patriot
 
Last edited:
Why should the government get involved at all in deciding who is married or not? Our forefathers never got a marriage license. They just got married and had a ceremony. Marriage licenses only came about because:

1) In the South, they wanted to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other.

2) In the North, marriage licenses were pushed by those who were in the eugenics movement.

The way I see it, if 2 people want to get married, they should just do it, and give the government nannies a big middle finger. Constitutionally speaking, it's none of the government's damn business.
 
Back
Top Bottom