GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

In Liberal-Speak, is Some Gay Marriage Advocacy Wingnuttery?

by

On Monday, left-wing blogger Joe.My.God labeled it “wingnuttery” when the Campaign for Children and Families urged its supports to boycott McDonald’s because of the corporation’s “support of homosexual ‘marriages’.”

Let’s see a group with a political agenda urges its supporters to boycott a corporation which supports a cause it opposes. Is that wingnuttery or the free market at work?   In our economy, consumers weigh a number of factors before choosing to purchase a product from a particular supplier. These social conservatives are just exercising their freedom.

But, to Joe, it’s wingnuttery when people reject a corporation for the political stands it takes. So, I assume he’ll be taking Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate to task given his group’s call:

for a boycott of two prominent San Diego hotels because their owner, Doug Manchester, contributed more than $100,000 to the campaign for Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Here, we have the same pattern at work, a group with a political agenda urging its supporters to boycott a corporation whose owner supports a cause it opposes.

They’re both right. If a corporation (or its owner) takes a stand on a controversial political issue, then consumers remain free to consider that support when they choose whether to buy the corporation’s product. That’s called freedom. And ain’t it grand?

But, alas, some liberals call it wingnuttery when conservatives exercise theirs.

Me, I’ll make sure to double my order of Chicken McNuggets next time I’m in McDonald’s.

Comments

  2. Dan, I believe this works both ways here and cuts across the liberal-conservative divide. Many of these so-called pro-family groups are engaging in rhetoric just as inflammatory, making such claims as “anti-Christian bigotry” being behind the move for SSM. I’m all for pointing out liberal foibles, but this one I see both sides guilty of. Group A calls for a boycott and Group B decries it and perhaps even calls for a counter-boycott. That’s all part of the game it appears.

  3. #1 – At last we found out where the Pinkster’s employed. Kind of makes sense given his political position.

    Make mine with extra BBQ sauce, please! 😉

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  4. Boycotts are pointless. If we boycotted everyone that we did not like, we would probably never leave our homes. This is a proposition on the ballot for a constitutional amendment in California. There will be-surprise-supporters and opponents. I want to know Mr. Manchester’s hotels so I can go to them and will still go to McDonalds. If I am hungry, what wait to find Righty’s Restaurant? If I need a place to stay, must I look for Righty’s Hotel? Of course not! What all this does is take away from the issue at hand. And the opponents of Prop 8 can not win on the merits, they will tear the opponents down. No boycotts, please!

  5. Can someone please point to a boycott that actually worked? It seems like a waste of time on both sides.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to debate the issue? Guess not, that takes time and willingness to look into the gray areas. Much easier to demonize and boycott.

  6. #3: “At last we found out where the Pinkster’s employed. Kind of makes sense given his political position. Make mine with extra BBQ sauce, please!”

    Peter, I pray you’re joking. You wouldn’t honestly allow that critter to handle your food, would you?

  8. #6 – Of course I was joking. If Pinko Bear was handling my food, I’d let someone like Kevin or rightiswrong taste it first to make sure it was OK. 😉

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  10. Mmmmm, Big Mac, large fries w ketchup and tartar and a vanilla shake. We’ve got some great burger joints up here, but sometimes you just get a craving that nothing but a Big Mac will satisfy. Think I’ll have one tonight.

  11. John’s right, both sides do it. A lot. Everyone decries that with which he does not agree. Often more extreme rhetoric is used.

    And sure, Pinky tosses playground insults at you. But when you toss them back, well, then you’re all children on the same playground.

    As to name-calling in general, is it still just as childish when you bleat out things like “(not my) Speaker Pelosi” or “snObama” or “Harry gReid”? I mean, seriously, hello pot, please meet your antagonist kettle.

  12. #11 – PSU, when your side stops using “Chimpy McHitler,” “Bushco” and “McSame” to discuss policy achievements, then we’ll stop. Deal?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  13. Peter: isn’t it amusing when the Left, who consistanly maintain a quality of discourse about equal with 6 year olds, get all hot and bothered when someone makes fun of the names of their lunatic leaders?

  17. #15: “I speak simply around people who are pretty simple minded.”

    Oh, Good Riddance, you poor, pathetic waste of space. You don’t “speak simply” because the participants on this blog are “simple minded,” and you know that. Your comments have two different styles. The first is prattling-off 3-4 laughable conspiracy theories and baseless allegations against the Bush Administration that you either memorized from the bumper stickers on the back of your car or you read off a Code Pink protest sign. The second is the grotesque, embarrassing way that you try to imitate a sex kitten (although it comes off more “sex hippo” than anything else). This two-note range of yours has long been understood by everyone on this blog as a sad concession of your inability to engage in legitimate, substantive debate on any issue or to defend any of your “beliefs” by resorting to facts and principles. You are too ignorant and stupid to go toe-to-toe with any of the intelligent conservatives on this blog, so your only defense is to change the subject with histrionic lists of allegations that are completely detached from reality, or respond with sad, patronizing flirtation that just makes everyone groan (or throw up in their mouths). You’re just an annoying imbecile to be swatted away on occasion so that the grown-ups can talk.

  18. “… If a corporation (or its owner) takes a stand on a controversial political issue, then consumers remain free to consider that support when they choose whether to buy the corporation’s product. That’s called freedom. And ain’t it grand? …”

    I’ve extended this to “boycotting” entertainers who use their fame to spread political views I find abhorrent. As with corporations, there are plenty of other choices in the marketplace.

    If a celebrity or a corporation feels the need to take a stand on a controversial subject then I don’t see why I shouldn’t be allowed the same Freedom to take a stand.

  22. Harvey Milk was instrumental in getting Coors Beer out of the gay bars in SF – this got him significant labor support when he ran for City Council (labor in SF was quite anti-gay at the time, though I believe they have mellowed since). Labor in many other parts of the country continues to be quite anti-gay in their attitudes.

    HRC’s most successful initiative in my view, has been their Corporate Equality initiative. It would be useful to check on this though – are unionized or nonunionized workplaces more likely to offer DP benefits and to have gay nondiscrimination policies?

  23. #22 – Eva, in my corporate workplace, we do not have any unions. However, top level management does offer DP benefits to same-sex couples and has a non-discrimination policy which includes sexual orientation.

    Just FYI.

    Regards,
    Peter H.