Gays Trying To Get Orson Scott Card Fired As A Comic Book Writer

[Stone holm]

In his plea for tolerance (posted by Daniel in #166), OSC implies that the pro-gay marriage battle has essentially been won and is all but over making his position "moot". This may or may not be true.

The issue I have with his statement is that he is asking for tolerance for those who "disagreed". Note, he used the past tense. But I see no attempt by him to renounce his views against gay marriage not to state that his views have changed. As far as I am aware, he still sits on he board of the National Organization for Marriage.

So, really, he doesn't appear to have disagreed with marriage equality... he still disagrees with marriage equality for homosexuals. And there is nothing wrong nor intolerant with people who don't like his views making the decision to NOT give him their money.

I agree. And if Card believes that the gay marriage battle is essentially over, I agree with him that it is substantially over as well. Whether he should expect economic tolerance from the LGBT community seems like wishful thinking given he hasn't displayed it towards them. It might be regretable but some writers wind up getting somewhat blackballed, Joseph McCarthy certainly went after artists and writers during his heyday, and Rudyard Kipling fell out of favor because of his clinging to imperialism, Ezra Pound wound up getting assigned to an insane asylum for having picked the wrong ideology in WWII. It happens. Sometimes you try to play both sides and wind up getting walloped, Target supposedly donated heavily to both sides of the gay rights battle and still got targeted by the gays. So when you are out there in the economy, you can take a stand but not much point in crying foul if you get economic pay back.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What do his personal views have to do with writing "Superman"??

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/dc-comics-faces-boycott-over-anti-gay-superman-writer.html

Nothing, it is just freedom of speech in America is dying. Makes we wonder why I served in the Army for 8 years.

[Calm]

Nothing, it is just freedom of speech in America is dying.

I am iffy on boycotts unless they can be directly tied to the person they are targeting. As the author of the book, hasn't Card already been paid for the rights? Does he get a percentage of the profits? Is the boycott with the intent to discourage producers from using Card's material in the future?

There would be a lot more people being hurt by a boycott than just Card, likely including many who supported the gay movement politically due to its strength in Hollywood. It seems shortsighted to hurt a number of your friends in order to get at one 'enemy'. Surely there must be more creative ways of doing this.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Saw this article today, and though of this concept from this thread:

I agree with the ACLU's actions.

Daniel2

Daniel...do you always or only when they agree with you. This is an org that has little regard with the military, and quite frankly freedom of speech, unless it is what they deem "freedom of speech". It is true they have supported groups who cry for the blood of America and done some good. But they are often anti-freedom. I remember what hing a movie. When one of the lawyers resigned because of anti-Semitism....even among other Jewish lawyers, and this hatred for ones own race was not unlimited to one. Would you support their actions no matter the outcome, if it supported Gay Marriage?

[rockpond]

Daniel...do you always or only when they agree with you. This is an org that has little regard with the military, and quite frankly freedom of speech, unless it is what they deem "freedom of speech". It is true they have supported groups who cry for the blood of America and done some good. But they are often anti-freedom. I remember what hing a movie. When one of the lawyers resigned because of anti-Semitism....even among other Jewish lawyers, and this hatred for ones own race was not unlimited to one. Would you support their actions no matter the outcome, if it supported Gay Marriage?

Daniel is a gay man and he said that he supports the ACLU's actions in defending the right of the student to wear an anti-gay t-shirt. So, yes, he is supporting freedom of speech even when he disagrees with what is being spoken.

[Daniel2]

Daniel is a gay man and he said that he supports the ACLU's actions in defending the right of the student to wear an anti-gay t-shirt. So, yes, he is supporting freedom of speech even when he disagrees with what is being spoken.

PaPa,

It appears you may not have read the link I posted. Rockpond's response is accurate. Yes, I support freedom of speech, even when it is anti-gay (as is described in the ACLU article I posted, to which you responded; also as described in my posts in this thread, acknowledging Mr. Card's freedom to promote his views). I also recognize and support free commerce, and the right to choose how to spend one's money (on all sides of any issue).

Daniel

[Daniel2]

Nothing, it is just freedom of speech in America is dying. Makes we wonder why I served in the Army for 8 years.

Thank you for your service in defending our liberties. As someone raised in the US military growing up, I'm very appreciative of those who have given and sacrificed much to uphold our Constitutional freedoms.

What evidence do you see in this thread that "freedom of speech in America is dying"?

This is an org that has little regard with the military, and quite frankly freedom of speech, unless it is what they deem "freedom of speech". It is true they have supported groups who cry for the blood of America and done some good. But they are often anti-freedom.

CFR that the ACLU:

1. has little regard for the military

2. has little regard for freedom of speech

3. is often "anti-freedom."

As for "they quite frankly have little regard for freedom of speech, unless its what they deem 'freedom of speech'," you may have missed the portion of the article I quoted, in which the ACLU spokesperson stated:

"The First Amendment was written to protect unpopular speech, which is naturally the kind of speech that will always need protection," Sandra Staub, legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut, told WFSB of CBS. "The ACLU has fought hard for same-sex marriage and we couldn't agree with Seth less on that issue, but he is absolutely correct about his right to express his opinion."

Daniel

[Daniel2]

Lionsgate responds to the controversy, distancing themselves from Card and NOM:

Lionsgate Denounces NOM & Orson Scott Card, Will Host Ender's Game LGBT Benefit

“As proud longtime supporters of the LGBT community, champions of films ranging from GODS AND MONSTERS to THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER and a Company that is proud to have recognized same-sex unions and domestic partnerships within its employee benefits policies for many years, we obviously do not agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card and those of the National Organization for Marriage. However, they are completely irrelevant to a discussion of ENDER’S GAME. The simple fact is that neither the underlying book nor the film itself reflect these views in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, the film not only transports viewers to an entertaining and action-filled world, but it does so with positive and inspiring characters who ultimately deliver an ennobling and life-affirming message. Lionsgate will continue its longstanding commitment to the LGBT community by exploring new ways we can support LGBT causes and, as part of this ongoing process, will host a benefit premiere for ENDER’S GAME.” - Lionsgate Entertainment, via email.

[Stone holm]

Daniel...do you always or only when they agree with you. This is an org that has little regard with the military, and quite frankly freedom of speech, unless it is what they deem "freedom of speech". It is true they have supported groups who cry for the blood of America and done some good. But they are often anti-freedom. I remember what hing a movie. When one of the lawyers resigned because of anti-Semitism....even among other Jewish lawyers, and this hatred for ones own race was not unlimited to one. Would you support their actions no matter the outcome, if it supported Gay Marriage?

Nonsense.

[Storm Rider]

PaPa,

It appears you may not have read the link I posted. Rockpond's response is accurate. Yes, I support freedom of speech, even when it is anti-gay (as is described in the ACLU article I posted, to which you responded; also as described in my posts in this thread, acknowledging Mr. Card's freedom to promote his views). I also recognize and support free commerce, and the right to choose how to spend one's money (on all sides of any issue).

Daniel

And wouldn't it be a beautiful thing if those who disagree drew strict lines about from whom we buy things and from whom we reject for any interaction. Yes, this is the way to a more civil society. I can see it now. Gays only buying from those who openly confess the beauty and wholesomeness of a gay lifestyle and those who reject. Soon we could have new nations and cities that demand strict adherence to their chosen way and cast out all those who show any degree of nonconformance. Yes, these gays have shown us the way to a very wonderful lifestyle indeed. By their fruits you shall know them.

[Daniel2]

Gay Mormon Oscar-winner shares his thoughts. From the New York Times:

Dustin Lance Black: I Won't Boycott Movie

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/business/media/authors-anti-gay-views-fuel-call-for-boycott-of-enders-game.html?pagewanted=all

Openly gay Oscar winner and activist Dustin Lance Black says he won't take part in the boycott of Ender's Game. Via the New York Times:

Not every advocate of gay equality and same-sex marriage is convinced that turning away from “Ender’s Game,” which cost about $110 million to make, is the best way to counter Mr. Card. “No way am I boycotting,” said Dustin Lance Black, who in 2009 won an Oscar for writing “Milk,” about the gay activist Harvey Milk, and who campaigned against California’s Proposition 8, which sought to ban gay marriage. Speaking from London on Wednesday, Mr. Black — who, like Mr. Card, comes from a Mormon family — said he would rather engage with, than shut out, political and cultural adversaries. “We haven’t been getting the numbers we’ve seen by disengaging,” Mr. Black said, referring to a rise in public acceptance of same-sex marriage and other measures of gay equality.

NOTE: Buried in the middle of the above-linked article is mention that Orson Scott Card left NOM's board of directors sometime this year. I'm guessing that's why he felt free to describe the same-sex marriage battle as now "moot." NOM, for their part, has not yet officially commented on Card's surrender.

[california boy]

And wouldn't it be a beautiful thing if those who disagree drew strict lines about from whom we buy things and from whom we reject for any interaction. Yes, this is the way to a more civil society. I can see it now. Gays only buying from those who openly confess the beauty and wholesomeness of a gay lifestyle and those who reject. Soon we could have new nations and cities that demand strict adherence to their chosen way and cast out all those who show any degree of nonconformance. Yes, these gays have shown us the way to a very wonderful lifestyle indeed. By their fruits you shall know them.

I am a bit confused by your post here. Are you only talking about gays or are you also talking about all of the "christian" boycott groups such as Million Moms and Focuse on the Family etc. who seem to call for a boycott of someone every week over their stance on gay marriage. Here is a partial list of the companies that those who are against gay marriage have asked the public to boycott.

Adobe Systems

Allstate Insurance

Amazon.com

American Apparel

American Airlines

Apple

Applebee’s

Ben & Jerry’s

Best Buy

Boeing

Clorox: Brita filters, Pine-sol, Glad bags, Hidden Valley Ranch

Coca-cola: Fanta, Dasani, Powerade, Sprite, Minutemaid

Costco

Delta Airlines

Ebay

Ford-Lincoln

Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Piperlime

General Mills: Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Wheaties, Betty Crocker, Pillsbury, Green Giant, Hamburger Helper

General Motors: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC

Goldman Sachs

Google, Youtube

Hilton, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inn

Home Depot

IBM

Intuit

J.C.Penney

Kraft Foods: Cadbury, Nabisco, Oreo, Oscar Meyer, Planters

Levi’s

Marriott Hotels

McDonald’s

Microsoft: Windows, Xbox

Nationwide Insurance

Nike, Converse

Olive Garden

Office Depot

Pepsi: Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Tropicana, Aquafina, Frito-Lay, Quaker Oats

Proctor & Gamble: Bounty, Charmin, Crest, Duracell, Gillette, Old Spice, Pampers, Tide, Vicks

Red Lobster

Rite Aid

Sears, Lands End

Southwest Airlines

Starbucks

State Farm Insurance

Target

United Airlines

UPS

Walgreens

Walt Disney: ABC. ESPN, Pixar, The Muppets

Wells Fargo

By their fruits you shall know them. Nice.

[Calm]

“We haven’t been getting the numbers we’ve seen by disengaging"

That is a wise comment.

And while portraying others as bigots, etc. may be helpful in the short run as some might respond to avoid such labels, I think in the long run more resentment--perhaps buried, but there---would be the result of such behaviour. The more effective PR is to concentrate on the positive side of things, which many gay activists do well.

[Stone holm]

I am a bit confused by your post here. Are you only talking about gays or are you also talking about all of the "christian" boycott groups such as Million Moms and Focuse on the Family etc. who seem to call for a boycott of someone every week over their stance on gay marriage. Here is a partial list of the companies that those who are against gay marriage have asked the public to boycott.

Adobe Systems

Allstate Insurance

Amazon.com

American Apparel

American Airlines

Apple

Applebee’s

Ben & Jerry’s

Best Buy

Boeing

Clorox: Brita filters, Pine-sol, Glad bags, Hidden Valley Ranch

Coca-cola: Fanta, Dasani, Powerade, Sprite, Minutemaid

Costco

Delta Airlines

Ebay

Ford-Lincoln

Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Piperlime

General Mills: Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Wheaties, Betty Crocker, Pillsbury, Green Giant, Hamburger Helper

General Motors: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC

Goldman Sachs

Google, Youtube

Hilton, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inn

Home Depot

IBM

Intuit

J.C.Penney

Kraft Foods: Cadbury, Nabisco, Oreo, Oscar Meyer, Planters

Levi’s

Marriott Hotels

McDonald’s

Microsoft: Windows, Xbox

Nationwide Insurance

Nike, Converse

Olive Garden

Office Depot

Pepsi: Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Tropicana, Aquafina, Frito-Lay, Quaker Oats

Proctor & Gamble: Bounty, Charmin, Crest, Duracell, Gillette, Old Spice, Pampers, Tide, Vicks

Red Lobster

Rite Aid

Sears, Lands End

Southwest Airlines

Starbucks

State Farm Insurance

Target

United Airlines

UPS

Walgreens

Walt Disney: ABC. ESPN, Pixar, The Muppets

Wells Fargo

By their fruits you shall know them. Nice.

Interesting that Marriots made the list. Kind of a danged if you do and danged if you don't, they scurried quickly to avoid being associated with Prop 8, and then got condemned by the militant anti gays.

[Stargazer]

I wonder if the issue of the Ender's Game boycott belongs in another thread? Whatever.

In regard to the movement to boycott Ender's Game because the author of the book upon which it is based is opposed to gay marriage, of course the book itself does not even raise that issue, nor homosexuality at all. In a sense I guess I understand it, but I really don't see the point. Except that in order to keep the issue in the public forum, one must take every opportunity, no matter how ethereally connected with the issue it might be.

How many movies would I have to boycott because the production contained people whose political or other views I didn't agree with? The most to-the-point example is:

Lord of the Rings trilogy. I should have boycotted this movie because: Ian McKellan (Gandalf) is gay and is pro-gay marriage (I suppose); and Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) is a freaking bleeding heart liberal and thinks that LotR supports his political view that the US should not have invaded Iraq.

If someone told me that they boycotted LotR because of McKellan and Mortensen I would have told them they were nuts.

The only movie I would boycott (a ridiculous word in this case) is one that I believed promoted gay marriage. Or something else I disagreed strongly with. But maybe I would go see it anyway, if it was actually a good movie with a good storyline and good acting. I don't care what sexuality and poltics McKellan and Mortensen espouse, if they make a good movie then I want to see it. Both of these guys are abso-freaking-lutely perfect as Gandalf and Aragorn. I'd see any movie they were in whose storyline were interesting.

I guess what I REALLY dislike is the attempt at Mind Control the forces of pro-gay marriage are all on about. Card opposes gay marriage, so he must be pilloried and everything connected with him, even that which has nothing to do with the subject of gay rights.

I remember Cato the Elder? Great Roman orator and all that? There was a time when he ended every speech in the Senate, regardless of its general topic, with the phrase "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed!" So this is what Card gets because he dares to get out of line. Orsonus Cardus delenda est!

I'm getting really sick of it all. And guess what? It doesn't do anything at all to convince me that I am wrong in my position on this issue. It only hardens my opposition. Does it actually sway anyone? I highly doubt it. Therefore it is pointless, unless the whole thing is intended to make weak people who don't support gay marriage become silent.

Did anyone here read the book 1984? Does the word thoughtcrime ring any bells?

.

[california boy]

I wonder if the issue of the Ender's Game boycott belongs in another thread? Whatever.

In regard to the movement to boycott Ender's Game because the author of the book upon which it is based is opposed to gay marriage, of course the book itself does not even raise that issue, nor homosexuality at all. In a sense I guess I understand it, but I really don't see the point. Except that in order to keep the issue in the public forum, one must take every opportunity, no matter how ethereally connected with the issue it might be.

How many movies would I have to boycott because the production contained people whose political or other views I didn't agree with? The most to-the-point example is:

Lord of the Rings trilogy. I should have boycotted this movie because: Ian McKellan (Gandalf) is gay and is pro-gay marriage (I suppose); and Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) is a freaking bleeding heart liberal and thinks that LotR supports his political view that the US should not have invaded Iraq.

If someone told me that they boycotted LotR because of McKellan and Mortensen I would have told them they were nuts.

The only movie I would boycott (a ridiculous word in this case) is one that I believed promoted gay marriage. Or something else I disagreed strongly with. But maybe I would go see it anyway, if it was actually a good movie with a good storyline and good acting. I don't care what sexuality and poltics McKellan and Mortensen espouse, if they make a good movie then I want to see it. Both of these guys are abso-freaking-lutely perfect as Gandalf and Aragorn. I'd see any movie they were in whose storyline were interesting.

I guess what I REALLY dislike is the attempt at Mind Control the forces of pro-gay marriage are all on about. Card opposes gay marriage, so he must be pilloried and everything connected with him, even that which has nothing to do with the subject of gay rights.

I remember Cato the Elder? Great Roman orator and all that? There was a time when he ended every speech in the Senate, regardless of its general topic, with the phrase "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed!" So this is what Card gets because he dares to get out of line. Orsonus Cardus delenda est!

I'm getting really sick of it all. And guess what? It doesn't do anything at all to convince me that I am wrong in my position on this issue. It only hardens my opposition. Does it actually sway anyone? I highly doubt it. Therefore it is pointless, unless the whole thing is intended to make weak people who don't support gay marriage become silent.

Did anyone here read the book 1984? Does the word thoughtcrime ring any bells?

.

I was a big fan of Orson Scott Card. I have read just about every book he has written. I have to admit that my attitudes towards him have certainly changed when I have read some of the outlandish statements he has made directed towards gay marriage and the gay community. I have also thought about boycotting Enders Game. I do feel that boycotting is an effective way society has to point out bad behavior that one disagrees with. It is one of the strongest ways that an average person on the street can make a statement that he disagrees with someones political beliefs that they feel are harmful to society. I feel many of the statements that Orson Scott Card do indeed harm society and he should be singled out for those statements.

Unfortunately I don't buy his books anymore. But I feel like Orson Scott Card is just one part of the movie. He is not the movie. I plan to see the film.

[Stone holm]

I was a big fan of Orson Scott Card. I have read just about every book he has written. I have to admit that my attitudes towards him have certainly changed when I have read some of the outlandish statements he has made directed towards gay marriage and the gay community. I have also thought about boycotting Enders Game. I do feel that boycotting is an effective way society has to point out bad behavior that one disagrees with. It is one of the strongest ways that an average person on the street can make a statement that he disagrees with someones political beliefs that they feel are harmful to society. I feel many of the statements that Orson Scott Card do indeed harm society and he should be singled out for those statements.

Unfortunately I don't buy his books anymore. But I feel like Orson Scott Card is just one part of the movie. He is not the movie. I plan to see the film.

I kind of agree with this sentiment. There is quite a wide variance in the quality of Card's writings. I see no problem with people boycotting either the books or the film or pressuring the publishers of the comic book because of him. I intend to see the movie because I enjoyed the book and because what you said is true of the movie -- but I have no problem with other people boycotting the film.. Calling for boycotts is a very American activity and part of our right of free speech.

[rockpond]

I guess what I REALLY dislike is the attempt at Mind Control the forces of pro-gay marriage are all on about. Card opposes gay marriage, so he must be pilloried and everything connected with him, even that which has nothing to do with the subject of gay rights.

It strikes me as over-the-top to claim that this proposed boycott is an attempt at "Mind Control". The gay community did not invent the idea of boycotting products or services as a means of promoting a group's point of view. As other's have said, this is simply free speech being exercised.

Further, Brother Card is not just some average joe on the street who happens to be against marriage equality for homosexuals. He was on the board of the National Organization for Marriage... a group that actively fought against gay marriage.

All that said, even though I favor full marriage equality in our country, I will be seeing this movie. The Ender's Game story does not promote Brother Card's views against gays and a lot of other people have worked on the film.

[Sleeper Cell]

I was a big fan of Orson Scott Card. I have read just about every book he has written. I have to admit that my attitudes towards him have certainly changed when I have read some of the outlandish statements he has made directed towards gay marriage and the gay community. I have also thought about boycotting Enders Game. I do feel that boycotting is an effective way society has to point out bad behavior that one disagrees with. It is one of the strongest ways that an average person on the street can make a statement that he disagrees with someones political beliefs that they feel are harmful to society. I feel many of the statements that Orson Scott Card do indeed harm society and he should be singled out for those statements.

Unfortunately I don't buy his books anymore. But I feel like Orson Scott Card is just one part of the movie. He is not the movie. I plan to see the film.

Thirty years ago, society considered any “gay behavior” as “bad behavior.“ Suppose society still had the same attitude? . Would you still be OK with “society” using boycotts to "point out" what it regarded as “bad behavior?

What concerns me even more is how easily your argument evolved from justifying boycotting people for their “bad behavior,” to boycotting people for their statements and even for their beliefs.

Despite another poster’s response to Stargazer (quoted below), his comment may not have been quite so “over- the-top,” after all.

It strikes me as over-the-top to claim that this proposed boycott is an attempt at "Mind Control". The gay community did not invent the idea of boycotting products or services as a means of promoting a group's point of view.

IIRC, my parents never found arguments like: “He started it” and “Everyone else is doing it,” very persuasive.

As other's have said, this is simply free speech being exercised.

As far as I know, nobody is saying that this boycott is illegal. However, not everything that is legal is ethical. For example, exercising your right to “free speech” in order to intimidate someone else from exercising his right “free speech.”

[jim_mason]

As far as I know, nobody is saying that this boycott is illegal. However, not everything that is legal is ethical. For example, exercising your right to “free speech” in order to intimidate someone else from exercising his right “free speech.”

Isn't that rock pond's point? No current organization invented boycotts as a means to suppress the "free speech" or as a means of "mind control" or "thought control" of another. Radical groups, regardless of affiliation, use boycotts to suppress another "free speech". And yes "he started it" isn't a very good reason; but wouldn't it be hypocrisy to condemn one act of "free speech" suppression via a boycott, and not condemn another "free speech" suppression via a boycott - which I gather is rock ponds point.

[rockpond]

Isn't that rock pond's point? No current organization invented boycotts as a means to suppress the "free speech" or as a means of "mind control" or "thought control" of another. Radical groups, regardless of affiliation, use boycotts to suppress another "free speech". And yes "he started it" isn't a very good reason; but wouldn't it be hypocrisy to condemn one act of "free speech" suppression via a boycott, and not condemn another "free speech" suppression via a boycott - which I gather is rock ponds point.

Yes, that is my point. Thank you.

Last year, One Million Moms boycotted JC Penney because they hired Ellen DeGeneres (who happens to be a lesbian) as their spokesperson. Their goal was to hit JC Penney's bottom line in order to have DeGeneres fired. I disagreed with their position but I certainly wouldn't call it "mind control". They had every right to choose where to spend their money and to encourage others with similar thinking to spend (or not spend) their money accordingly.

So, Sleeper Cell, is the One Million Moms boycott an attempt at intimidation? Or is it free speech?

[Storm Rider]

I am a bit confused by your post here. Are you only talking about gays or are you also talking about all of the "christian" boycott groups such as Million Moms and Focuse on the Family etc. who seem to call for a boycott of someone every week over their stance on gay marriage. Here is a partial list of the companies that those who are against gay marriage have asked the public to boycott.

Adobe Systems

Allstate Insurance

Amazon.com

American Apparel

American Airlines

Apple

Applebee’s

Ben & Jerry’s

Best Buy

Boeing

Clorox: Brita filters, Pine-sol, Glad bags, Hidden Valley Ranch

Coca-cola: Fanta, Dasani, Powerade, Sprite, Minutemaid

Costco

Delta Airlines

Ebay

Ford-Lincoln

Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Piperlime

General Mills: Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Wheaties, Betty Crocker, Pillsbury, Green Giant, Hamburger Helper

General Motors: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC

Goldman Sachs

Google, Youtube

Hilton, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inn

Home Depot

IBM

Intuit

J.C.Penney

Kraft Foods: Cadbury, Nabisco, Oreo, Oscar Meyer, Planters

Levi’s

Marriott Hotels

McDonald’s

Microsoft: Windows, Xbox

Nationwide Insurance

Nike, Converse

Olive Garden

Office Depot

Pepsi: Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Tropicana, Aquafina, Frito-Lay, Quaker Oats

Proctor & Gamble: Bounty, Charmin, Crest, Duracell, Gillette, Old Spice, Pampers, Tide, Vicks

Red Lobster

Rite Aid

Sears, Lands End

Southwest Airlines

Starbucks

State Farm Insurance

Target

United Airlines

UPS

Walgreens

Walt Disney: ABC. ESPN, Pixar, The Muppets

Wells Fargo

By their fruits you shall know them. Nice.

You do a lot of that...excusing your actions because someone else does it. It is one of the poorer ways to build a foundation for your position, but hey, some moms did not teach their little boys the fundamentals of two wrongs don't make it right. But, you go on with your bad self and keep it going. If it works; never change your tactics; and for goodness sakes never, ever try to choose the right.

[rockpond]

You do a lot of that...excusing your actions because someone else does it. It is one of the poorer ways to build a foundation for your position, but hey, some moms did not teach their little boys the fundamentals of two wrongs don't make it right. But, you go on with your bad self and keep it going. If it works; never change your tactics; and for goodness sakes never, ever try to choose the right.

I don't think that CB was trying to excuse anyone's actions. He was just responding to your condemnation of gays participating in this boycott.

So, do you also similarly condemn the actions of One Million Moms in their recent boycott of JC Penney for hiring a gay spokesperson?

[Storm Rider]

I don't think that CB was trying to excuse anyone's actions. He was just responding to your condemnation of gays participating in this boycott.

So, do you also similarly condemn the actions of One Million Moms in their recent boycott of JC Penney for hiring a gay spokesperson?

I ignore all boycotts regardless if it is political or anything else. My choice of restaurant, movie, book, is a result of its appeal to me personally. I never check to find out if the director of a movie has similar political viewpoints or anything else. The issue is purely one of interest. I reject any group that tries to make my choice to be reflective of their own agenda. BTW, the group that squawks the best with this type of stupid tactic is the one that most often demands that everyone bow to their viewpoint. When I do hear this type of stupidity in action it motivates me to eat at a particular restaurant, sleep in a particular hotel, and watch a specific movie. It makes no sense for Cuba, it makes no sense for JC Penny, and sure as heck makes no sense boycott a movie. A pox on all their houses.

[Stone holm]

Thirty years ago, society considered any “gay behavior” as “bad behavior.“ Suppose society still had the same attitude? . Would you still be OK with “society” using boycotts to "point out" what it regarded as “bad behavior?

What concerns me even more is how easily your argument evolved from justifying boycotting people for their “bad behavior,” to boycotting people for their statements and even for their beliefs.

Despite another poster’s response to Stargazer (quoted below), his comment may not have been quite so “over- the-top,” after all.

IIRC, my parents never found arguments like: “He started it” and “Everyone else is doing it,” very persuasive.

As far as I know, nobody is saying that this boycott is illegal. However, not everything that is legal is ethical. For example, exercising your right to “free speech” in order to intimidate someone else from exercising his right “free speech.”

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we want the right to speak out and condemn homosexual behavior, then we need to allow others to exercise the same rights. If we claim the right to condemn homosexual behavior and SSM from the pulpit, then we have to respect the right of others to do the same thing from their pulpits. Both sides of this dispute have tried to bring pressure to bear. Some have somewhat unwillingly been sucked into the maelstrom because their organization or a church they were affiliated with took a stance which caused them to be painted with a certain position as well. So long as this controversy is used as a wedge issue by either side, then we should expect boycotts to erupt on both sides. That happens in a free country, and its one of the good things about a market economy. People are now boycotting all kinds of products for all kinds of reasons -- that is very American. Orson Scott Card said and did what he thought was right, that was his privilege, and its also his privilege to let the consequence follow. This boycott is a consequence, are you going to deny him the privilege of enjoying the consequences of his actions?