Subscribe
E-mail
Posts
Comments

We are blessed to live in a country that cherishes freedom – and that includes your freedom to choose with whom to associate and with whom to trade. Even when political machinations may tend to thwart the will of the people, the power of how you choose to spend your money can be an effective tool in bringing about social change. American patriots recognized the importance of this tactic through their boycott of British goods in opposition to “taxation without representation” during the colonial years preceding the Revolutionary War. Mahatma Ghandi recognized it too through his “swadeshi” policy, boycotting all foreign-made goods as part of the movement to obtain independence for the nation of India. These examples demonstrate that when political forces collaborate to obstruct the will of the people, there is still a way to express our discontent and work to bring about change.

Now both sides in the SSM debate are actively using boycotts in an attempt to aid their cause. 

LGBT activists in California, angered by the passage of Proposition 8, obtained the list of donors to the “Yes on 8” campaign and published them to call for boycotts of what they perceive as anti-SSM businesses. In response, the National Organization for Marriage created a new website BustTheBlacklist.com to call for a “Buycott” of these same business targeted for harassment by the LGBT activists, by encouraging pro-family supporters to make a special effort to patronize these businesses. 

Meanwhile, the American Family Association (AFA) has begun a national campaign to boycott Pepsi and its related family of products (e.g. Frito-Lay, Gatorade, Tropicana, Quaker), prompted by their enthusiastic support and financial donations to LGBT activism. PepsiCo has given $1 million to support the gay agenda, and AFA is asking pro-family supporters to petition the company to stop its pro-LGBT advocacy. AFA is simply asking that companies remain “neutral” in this “culture war”, and has a past track record of successfully influencing the corporate policies of other companies like McDonalds (which was boycotted from May to October during 2008, and which ultimately promised to withdraw its support for LGBT activism and refrain from further involvement in political and social issues).

Closer to home, teachers may be aware that their union (the Connecticut Education Association) was among the groups that endorsed a “No” vote on the question of a Constitutional Convention. Similarly, the California Teacher’s Association funneled more than $1.2 million into the fight against Proposition 8. In response, the Pacific Justice Institute created a new site ChooseCharity.org to inform union members about their right (under Federal law, based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) to avoid supporting causes and candidates they believe are in opposition to their religious beliefs and/or their political views by informing the union of their objection to paying dues. Instead they can redirect their union dues to a charity that is in agreement with their religious faith. 

In the end, it’s your money and you should choose for yourself how and where to spend it. Knowing more about the organizations and companies with which you might do business can help you to avoid inadvertently lending financial aid to the very things you find objectionable. Pro-family supporters should be especially alert and vigilant to ensure their hard-earned dollars are used for the good of society, rather than for efforts diametrically opposed to their values. 

3 Responses to “The Undeniable Right of Voting with Your Pocketbook”

  1. on 04 Jan 2009 at 12:02 pmDave

    Judging by the comments that are beginning to stream into the moderation queue, it seems that our left-wing friends have a hard time understanding the difference between a boycott and harassment. In the interest of helping to “save the lost”, and to rebut the false accusation of hypocrisy, here are some points they should consider:

    A boycott itself is merely exercising your own personal freedom to choose with whom to associate and with whom to trade. It’s a legitimate and peaceful tool to effectuate change.

    Harassment tends to encompass actions that impinge upon, impair, or interfere with someone else’s freedoms – including their freedom of speech, association, etc.

    The following are examples of actions that ought NOT to be considered as harassment:

    – Exercising your own individual right to vote according to your conscience
    – Simply expressing a point of view that is contrary to that held by others
    – Opting not to patronize a business based upon their history of political activism

    By way of comparison, consider these actions which ARE examples of harassment:

    – Blockading a storefront with mobs of protestors
    – Conspiring to have someone’s employment terminated because you disagree with their political viewpoints or how they choose to vote in an election
    – Vandalizing property because you disagree with the owner’s political views
    – Spitting upon or assaulting a person because you disagree with his political views
    – Invading a house of worship because you disagree with their views on morality
    – Sending letters with a mysterious white powder to instill fear of anthrax poisoning

    Any reasonable person who has monitored the news reports from California in the wake of Proposition 8 knows which side is overwhelmingly responsible for acts of harassment. It’s only those deluded by left-wing doublespeak who would mistakenly consider actions such as those in the first list as being indicative of harassment, when in fact all of them are constitutionally protected freedoms.

    Both sides have an equal right to organize boycotts, of course, but they should do so peacefully rather than escalating into harassment and violence.

  2. on 14 Jan 2009 at 11:08 pmAnthony Look

    Innocent people are hurt by the Utah Hate State boycott. Innocent employers, workers, and ultimely voters; many of whom never contributed to Prop 8’s passage. Voters that will tire of the causes that led to the boycott. Voters that already are informed of the cause and are unfortunately suffering the consequences. Voters that have a lot of thinking to do and then turn that thinking into action. The gay community is only consolidating it’s efforts daily in its resolve to achieve equal rights. It is evident in the news, blogs, and media. Prop 8 turned out to be a tremendous unifying wake up call. True acts of harassment are despicable and should not be encouraged or tolerated and should be dealt with appropriately.

  3. on 20 Jan 2009 at 2:50 pmPeter

    Dave, thanks for posting this. It’s one of the most important ssm-related issues out there right now. And as you saw in the queue, there’s not a lot of clear-headed thinking on it.

Leave a Reply