Boycotts – Lez Do It Right
The Wall Street Journal did a story on the boycotts of businesses that supported Prop. 8 in California.
They focused on the story of the owner’s daughter and manager of El Coyote restaurant that donated $100. People seem shocked that since so many gays work at the restaurant and it has a fairly large gay clientèle that there has been such huge protests of the restaurant over $100. There are people with businesses that gave over $1 million. Why is this restaurant hit so hard with a boycott that it has seen a decrease in sales of 30%?
I think it’s because the argument for so long has been, “If we come out and people just get to know us then they won’t vote against us.” Well here is an example of someone who is around gays all the time. According to the article Ms. Christoffersen told a group of LGBT activists on Nov 12, “I am sick at heart that I have offended anyone in the gay community.” So here we have it. She knows us and yet doesn’t understand how the community could be offended by her supporting a proposition that takes away our rights.
When you are in pain it is easiest to lash out at what is nearby. That is why I think this restaurant was hit so hard. People felt stabbed in the back and they had a face to target that they knew and could direct their anger at.
Many people feel our community lost so why not just deal with it. After all these boycotts just make us look like sore losers.
I disagree. I think there is a place for these boycotts. After all, we keep getting beat by the religious right so we might as well use their tactics of getting people’s attention through boycotts. The American Family Association calls for boycotts on a regular basis. The only difference is it is not over donations to an election.
Since 1996 when it called for it’s first boycott of a company over homosexuality, the AFA has boycotted at least six companies for supporting what they consider the homosexual agenda. These companies include Disney, American Girl, Ford, Sears, McDonald’s, and Hallmark. Many of these companies gave into the AFA because of the boycotts. So we know they can be effective.
In a recent interview on NPR Allan Wolff, a professor at Boston College said, “Boycotts are mostly symbolic. They are meant to have an economic impact but often don’t. They are really meant as a kind of statement.” However, we know from history that these statements can trigger a powerful movement. Just look at the impact the Montgomery Bus Boycott had on the civil rights movement.
I do want to emphasize that while I think boycotts can work and that we should be boycotting businesses that supported Prop 8 it needs to be just that. Ms. Christoffersen is not an owner. She may be related to the owner but she is an employee. It seems that the owner is supportive of gays by his hiring policies and the fact that the LGBT community has made the place a regular hang out. We tend not to do that at places we aren’t welcome.
I think we need to make sure we are focused so that the boycotts are the most effective and send the right message. We need to make sure that we are making a difference and not a spectacle. We need to become a force to be reckoned with and show that we will use our right as citizens to make sure that business owners that support us will benefit and those that don’t could find themselves suffering. I think one of the best examples was the focused target of the Cinemark movie chain. That really got some attention and was appropriate because the owner gave a substantial amount of money to the ‘Yes on 8′ campaign.
I also like the targeted boycott of A-1 Self Storage Company. Their owner, Terry Caster was the second largest contributor from California to donate to the Yes on 8 campaign. There are 30 California locations of the San Diego based business. For more information you can got to californiansagainsthate.com .
In the case of the El Coyote restaurant I look at it as an innocent victim in this war we are in for our civil rights. I hope we can get our targeting right and not hit any more innocent bystanders. If people want to make a statement about her support then ask to be helped by someone else. But the owner and other workers should not have to suffer.
Loading ...
very well said! i agree… lez do it right!
well honestly the right thing would be to go for civil unions which Obama the Clintons and many others support. If we go after that and then get the ok federally from the Obama administration we will get the rights we want for our relationships.
Marriage is a very divisive issue and many if not most Americans do not support us getting married. But if everyone had to have a civil union then the support for us would be much more vocal and upfront and we would get the federal and state benefits we so desire. Lets not just protest right lets battle right to get true equal rights.
I am willing to bet that both Jeff and Julie are young gays and lesbians that have no idea of the hard work and struggle that many, many older gay men and lesbians went through at the beginning of the gay rights struggle … slavery and interracial marriage were also very divisive issues … guess we should have just backed off those struggles too as we wouldn’t want to ruffle the feathers of most Americans about something so silly as civil rights. Pormike
Pormike,
I disagree. I think Jeff isn’t backing away at all. He says “everyone had to have a civil union.” That means the straights need to turn in their marriage licenses. It violates the church and state separation anyway if that is the main reason people are objecting to it. So now we are fighting the government to change all the tax codes and all the paperwork to say partner instead of husband and wife and civil union instead of marriage. The point is that every American that wants their relationship recognized does it under the same name. That is what we have been fighting for isn’t it?
I’m one of those “older gays” who was deeply involved in the radical gay activist movement in the early 70’s.
First, I appreciate Pormike’s recognition of the work we did to lay the groundwork for today’s worldwide GLBT community.
That being said – although I totally understand the emotional reaction over the El Coyote employee’s donation and understand that it certainly felt like a betrayal, especially to those who had gotten to know her personally, I do wholeheartedly agree that boycotts should only be called for when there is clear evidence that the business and/or the business’s owner is actually the perpetrator of the homophobia. Otherwise, our boycotts run the risk of becoming overused and irrelevant.
In this case, the restaurant itself had a long standing reputation of being supportive and welcoming to the GLBT community. And, even though the offending employee was a member of the family that owned the business, her donation was insignificant and she was probably pressured into it by her mormon precinct leaders. More importantly, I’ve heard nothing through all of this that indicated that any of the other family owners donated anything at all. If they had then this action certainly would have been justified. But without that, I think this was a huge overreaction and has ended up hurting the other employees – many of whom are gay themselves.
We need to be selective in what we chose to make issues out of.