Do You Think Some In The Gay Community Are To Militant?

Especially when it comes to reading the 'boycott' act?

Someone votes against gay marriage, boycott them.
Some company votes against gay adoption, boycott them.
Some company stops offering benefits for same sex couples, boycott them.
Someone decides they dont like gays, boycott them.
Some company decides not to run gay programs, boycott them.
Someone says 'fag' in public, boycott them.

I mean really, isnt there such a thing as going to far?

It always seems to be the same few groups that are acting this way to and these are the groups that are most vocal and have the largest audience when it comes to getting publicity for 'their' cause.

Anyone else feel this way?

I mean sure, im all for gay equality and stuff but going around throwing a hissy fit everytime we dont get our way or someone is vocal about THEIR beliefs i really dont think it going to help us at all.

It just seems like the slightest thing that happens that may be construed as 'anti-gay' even if it isnt intended that way has the militants up in arms and marching through the streets in their pink, glitter laden, lycra jumpsuits waving protest signs and causing problems for the rest of us.

Regards,

Lee

I think when it comes to politicians, who are supposed to serve ALL the people, I say go get them. When it comes to businesses, if you don't like their policies or practices, don't spend your money with them.

It is a very tricky thing trying to decide who or what to boycott and boycott successfully. If we let some slide and not others, what message are we sending? If we don't boycott what are we saying?

Bottom line is we will never be able to get everyone (the gay community) on board so really I just say let those that will do and the rest of us can watch and see what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Someone votes against gay marriage, boycott them.
Some company votes against gay adoption, boycott them.
Some company stops offering benefits for same sex couples, boycott them.
Someone decides they dont like gays, boycott them.
Some company decides not to run gay programs, boycott them.
Someone says 'fag' in public, boycott them.

I mean really, isnt there such a thing as going to far?

---

Why would you want to reward someone who doesn't think you're their equal? I'm sick and tired of being a second class citizen. Aren't you? What's it going to take for you to be sick of it? IMHO, we need more boycotts, not fewer.

Sometimes the shades of gray are such that it's hard to know how we should respond, both in terms of the degree of "punishment" that is merited and the PR factors which will ensue either to the credit or detriment of the gay community.

A recent example is the controversy about El Coyote, a semi-iconic restaurant in LA. The anti-gay marriage ballot initiative received a small donation ($100) from one of the family members who owns the restaurant and who has worked there for many years as a hostess. The restaurant itself has many gay employees (who may lose jobs if the restaurant slows or closes due to a boycott). El Coyote has also been a very popular hangout for gays, always welcoming us, no hint of anything less than a "we're glad you're here and queer" atmosphere. The restaurant has supported gay causes in the past and after the sh*t hit the fan about this latest thing, announced they would make further donations to the gay and lesbian center and the Lambda Legal Defense fund. Moreover, the employees have donated $500 toward overturning the gay marriage ban.

So...should the employees, gay and straight, suffer the consequences of a bad decision by one partial owner of the company? Should the gay community continue to patronize the place knowing a small portion of their dinner bill will end up in the pocket of the woman who gave money to restrict their civil rights?

My personal take in this is the cost/benefits are such that a boycott is unwarranted. I wouldn't like to punish one individual at the cost of harming so many others. Yet I understand the anger and frustration of those who are calling for a boycott as well. It's a no-win situation.

For the record, I used to go there occasionally (I lived in LA for 20 years). Food is not bad and the margaritas are good and the atmosphere was always pleasant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vaqueros

I wouldn't like to punish one individual at the cost of harming so many others.

---

See, thats my point, more often than not, when 'boycott' is screamed a lot of the gay community just tend to follow without thinking it through, i was reading on a blog the other day something about how we should 'boycott' Viacom because they wanted to drop Logo from some of its cable operators because they refused to pay some extra money for it.

I mean really, does it matter if cable companies dont carry logo? Who is it really effecting? Is not having Logo on certain cable providers going to cause anyone in the gay community harm? Is it going to cost us any money?

The problem is, Viacom wasnt just going to be dropping Logo, it was going to be dropping about 15+ of its channels but all these people being urged to 'boycott' were told was.. 'They are scrapping 'our' gay channel, its homophobic' and it actually wasnt, it was a business decision.

Regards,

Lee

I think this is an issue that will be discussed and analyzed for many more years within this country. There will always be problems among the various groups with this country, it how things are done on capital hill. Keep us all separate and fighting so we don't notice the man behind the curtain.

I personally think it is really sad that in the alleged greatest country on the planet, it's 2009 and we are in the state we are in.