Fighting the gay blacklist

Unfortunately there's nothing particularly wrong with using boycotts, complaining to companies, &c. Everyone is free to not buy from or otherwise do business with any company, everyone is free to complain to someone's employer, every employer is free to hire and fire as they see fit or do we want to advocate the opposite on each of those points?
We on the right do it or encourage boycotts and public action campaigns all the time. That is free speech, so it's more than a little hypocritical to complain about it when it's done to us.
No doubt Christians who defend marriage will be persecuted now and in the future, welcome to the cross.

So when you forced a gay priest out of his position, that was alright, but this is wrong?

Yeah, Rod. You poor religious conservatives are just SO powerless.

"I firmly denounce such attacks. Yes, I boycott businesses which discriminate against me, I buy apple not Dell..."

I've never owned a Mac, but in the future I will never buy anything but. Not because of politics or any sort of boycott. But because I HATE every PC I've ever owned.

Just saying.

Every single thing you posted that was done has BEEN done, very frequently, by those on the Right against businesses and people doing things that they disapprove of. You, yourself, in the very same post say you are boycoting a company too.

If not buying a company's products is 'retribution', I commit that quite often, since usually, by buying a product from one place means I didn't buy it from a dozen others.

Either boycotts are a legal and ethical action, or they are not.

The status doesn't change because you disagree with the reason behind the boycott.

Oh, and btw, I have family who was really blacklisted, during the McCarthy trials. This isn't anything close.

If this is a blacklist, then those who are boycotting Disney, or Dell, or.. insert Conservative Christian boycott here, are blacklisting.

To those who supported Proposition 8: If you can't stand the heat, stay home. If Propostion 8 had failed and businesses and individuals had given millions of dollars to defeat Prop 8, you would see death threats against those individuals and boycotts by the American Family Association and others against those businesses. That's they way politics is done in this country, for good or bad. So for those who supported Prop 8, stop your whining. You got what you wanted.

Again, this is only a 'blacklist' in the right's fevered opinion. This is a boycott, which isn't the same thing at all. Blacklists, by definition, require multiple businesses sharing a single list of people they will not do business with. A business that people won't do business with isn't a 'list' at all, much less a 'blacklist'.

And considering that the right has, for the past two decades, been boycotting every gay-supportive business in sight...

...and considering they've not only has repeatedly sunk to the level of the personal, not by 'random comment writers', but by national spokespeople (Graeme Frost, anyone?)...

...I say, about damn time people started fighting back.

What we have in America is less a culture war than a constitutional war. And if we could just straighten out the latter, we'd go a long way toward diffusing the former.

I didn't say that. William McGurn did. I second his un-emotion:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757137423754669.html

Oh don't be such a drama queen.

A lot of free speech talk in this thread seems to be getting ahead of itself or indeed of what I suspect is Rod's point. I don't think Rod is so muddle-headed as to think that there is a _solution_ to this activity. What would a solution look like? Legislation? What is the activity that the legislation would be trying to prevent? Is that prevention compatible with the U.S. Constitution or our own ideas of a free society?

I'm sure Rod knows the answers to these questions, so knock off the free speech talk. Rod doesn't have to like the boycott of pro Prop. 8 businesses and more than Prop. 8 opponents have to like pro Prop. 8 businesses.

For what it's worth, I think this is indeed blowback to the very idea of a "culture war" -- and it is undeniably the case that the religious right seems to take a zero-sum position with respect to the gay community.

Instead of finding ways to feel embattled, I'd like to see Rod, or other Christians who oppose the advance of what they call "the gay agenda" outline in positive terms the society they hope to inhabit, and talk about how and whether that society is compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

Rod? What's your point B, and how do you propose to get there?

The Sunday before the election I attended church. The church I attend supported Prop 8. In his final prayer at the end of the meeting, the minister said, "Help us to accept the results of the election and to love those who took a position contrary to ours."
Representatives from the two sides were featured on a local TV station on election night when the results were still in question, and both were asked how they would proceed after the election. The prop 8 supporter said that they would accept the results and move on. The no representative did not answer the question. I am certain the the uncivil and uncalled for behavior of the no side would not have been exhibited had the results gone the other way. THIS WAS A LEGITIMATE POLITICAL ISSUE WITH LEGITIMATE REASONS TO VOTE FOR EITHER SIDE. Changing the sexual make-up of marriage partners is not a trivial issue and it should NOT be determined by courts. The repercussions of such a change need much more examination and honest discussion than the heat of an election allowed. Voters legitimately rejected the courts meddling in such matters. Those who condemn hateful behavior from the no side are to be commended, but those of you who condone it and practice it--Shame on you. I might just add that I am grateful these comments are anonymous.

Treed:

I assume you oppose Loving vs Virginia then.

Interracial marriage and gay marriage are not the same thing in some ways; however, the role of the courts overruling popular opinion is a match. Polls weren't as numerous (or, likely, as accurate) back then, but in 1958 - a decade after California's 1948 ruling that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional - the practice had 4% support nationally. 4%. (See Gallup). It got all the way up to 20% the year it overruled nationally, and the first poll to get a plurality of support was 1991.

One of the key points of a constitutional system is to keep certain populist impulses in check and protect the rights of minorities, therefore overruling the "will of the people". Whether or not the CA, CT, and MA were legally correct or not, they were not the illegitimate stupidities asserted so often by the right. The courts are not to blame, and the term "activist judges" has become a parody of itself, meaning nothing more than "Waaah! They ruled in a way I don't like!" (Which is disappointing, as having lived in NJ I can say there are actual activist judges using the definition the right pretends it uses).

I find the boycott of business simply because they have high-profile employees who donated to Prop 8 absurd, despite my opposition to the law. And the idiotic intimidation, though probably overblown (it always is, on all sides) is disturbing.

Also, the author you quote is throwing around "free speech" far too loosely, which seems endemic in our culture.

I agree with pantherra.

This is hysterical silliness generating page views, but no real substance. I have noticed a disturbing trend in deleting posts that are critical of the author here under the guise of "troll" control. I have little faith that Rod is truly interested in dialog in this forum, and would rather have a "woe to the persecuted Christians" echo chamber. It's his blog, so whatever floats his boat.

I can get the same thing at Townhall.com without the censorship, however.

What we have in America is less a culture war than a constitutional war. And if we could just straighten out the latter, we'd go a long way toward diffusing the former. I didn't say that. William McGurn did. I second his un-emotion:

Hmm, that article basically tells social conservatives to give up their theory of a Divine Order. And it tells social liberals that laws and governance don't have to conform to the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Immunities and Privileges clauses of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Neither of those two things exist in the author's universe, which operates on a fantasy of benign majoritarianism being a sufficient substitute for justice.

And it's sheer coincidence that an opinion writer for the WSJ would suggest pure pragmatism at a point where the Right and social conservatives have lost the political center on all Culture War issues save one, which is seemingly also slipping away.

Richard - I think there is a difference between boycotting a large corporation like McDonald's or Ford Motors for policies that are harmful to society .vs. targetting for intimidation an individual citizen for voicing his opinion.

There is absolutely no reason society needs gay "marriage". If gays want to form lasting relationships they are already free to do so. And they are free to name those relationships something other than "marriage", since homosexual duos simply lack the gender diversity to meet that word's definition. Until gays and their apologists present a coherent reason why the rest of us should change the way we define marriage, they should calm themselves and be thankful they live in a Christian, not a Muslim, country.

Big or small, there's no obligation for anyone to do business with, well, anyone. You have no constitutional right to customers.

And if you think that the Religious Right has only boycotted large corporations, or has NOT posted information, the personal and family information of someone in a business or who holds a position that they find unacceptable, you'd be wrong. Those boycotts are only the ones that receive the most press.

The only 'intimidating' this post has noted is that they won't be doing business with the man (did he REALLY expect them to after that? That passes naive and verges on questioning intelligence..) and noting to others who do why they aren't.

Which is.. all not only perfectly legal, but all has been done (and quite a bit more) by conservative protestors. Ironically, one of the major triggers for such actions by conservatives is advocating for, or showing acceptance of gay rights.

There is absolutely no reason society needs gay "marriage".

Elaborate, please, on society's "need" for heterosexual "marriages" like Britney Spears's 55 hour "committment", or Darva Conger & Rick Rockwell's TV game show prize "marriage", or any one of Mickey Rooney's eight "marriages", or Prince Charles & Camilla Parker Bowles Windsor's (shurely non-procreational "marriage". We wait with bated breath for a cogent explanation of how we "need" such "marriages".

"If gays want to form lasting relationships they are already free to do so."

Might white of ya, Massa. Trouble is, we already do form such relationships. Now what's missing is equal government recognition of them as marriages (since that is what they are). It's called the equal protections clause of the Constitution.

"And they are free to name those relationships something other than "marriage"

No need for any special institutions or special rights. Equal rights will do just fine, thanks. My marriage is perfectly legal. Why would I (or why should I) call it anything other than what it is?

"since homosexual duos simply lack the gender diversity to meet that word's definition."

Is "gender diversity" anything like the "racial purity" that used to be required? Just askin'.

"Until gays and their apologists present a coherent reason why the rest of us should change the way we define marriage, they should calm themselves and be thankful they live in a Christian, not a Muslim, country."

The "coherent reason" you seek is called the equal protections clause of the Constitution. Sorry you don't seem to know of it.

Oh, and P.S. since when is America a "Christian nation"? I rememberr something called freedom of religion that used to be part and parcel of America's promise to the world. When did you dismantle that?

Here is the problem, speaking against Gay Marriage is not a 'Religious Right' issue.

Voters who voted for Democrtat candidate Barack Obama also voted AGAINST Gay Marriage.

The incoming President does not accept Gay Marriage any more than the prior Presidents.

Further, to say civil rights have been violated is a fallacy since homosexuals are not banned from marriage, in fact, homosexuals have married since the dawn of this system even born children, divorced only to marry again.