Buy More Crest Toothpaste! Buy More Tide Detergent! Buy every Procter & Gamble product you can find in the supermarket!!!
Or don’t.
I don’t care actually.
But opponents of gay marriage do:
A pair of conservative groups are calling for a boycott of two Procter & Gamble Co. products because the organizations say P&G is tacitly supporting gay marriage.
The American Family Association, of Tupelo, Miss., and Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, Colo., said they urged their supporters this week to refuse to buy Crest toothpaste and Tide detergent, two of P&G’s biggest selling products.
P&G spokesman Doug Shelton said the organizations have wrongly characterized the company’s support of repealing a Cincinnati charter amendment to mean that it is supporting same-sex marriage.
P&G has given $10,000 in support of a Nov. 2 ballot issue for repeal of a 1993 city charter amendment that forbids Cincinnati to enact or enforce laws based on sexual orientation. P&G said it believes the amendment makes it harder to attract visitors and potential employees to Cincinnati and that it subjects gay people to potential discrimination in workplaces and housing.
Federated Department Stores Inc., a Cincinnati-based corporation that owns the Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s stores, also has given $20,000 in support of the campaign.
“P&G has not supported gay marriage. The definition of marriage is a subject that will be debated and decided by voters,” Shelton said Friday. “We’ve not taken a position on that — and we won’t.”
Yes, it’s sunk to this. The totally intolerant religious right is blackmailing corporations who are working, one must assume, toward what they believe are their stockholders’ best interests. Of course this does present an interesting dilemma for the highly pro-business Bush administration. Is Jim Lehrer taking suggestions for questions?
Ah, so AFA and FotF will become noticably more stinky. That will surely forward their cause.
The repeal of Article 12 in Cincinnati has finally been given support by the business community because a decade plus of hearing why conventions and young people don’t want to come here has reluctantly sunk in.
The law, by the way, allowed a boss or even a landlord to legally discriminate without repercussions. “You’re gay? You’re fired!” “You’re gay? Your lease is no longer valid!”
I hope the pendulum has swung because the group out of Colorado funded the original legislation in ’93.
I know this is an issue close to you Edward but don’t let these groups get to you. I’m from Mississippi, and have heard of the two orginizations you mention. Though there are some few people scattered here and there that listen to them, most people (even those in the deep south) think they are a bunch of loonies.
I can understand how upsetting it can be when you see them in what appears to be large numbers but they really are extreme fringe from my experience.
The totally intolerant religious right is blackmailing corporations who are working
I believe the word you’re looking for is boycotting. Blackmailing would be a felony.
I believe the word you’re looking for is boycotting. Blackmailing would be a felony.
Let’s just call it “poetic license” in this case…a boycott, in the honorable sense, attempts to correct some social ill, not perpetuate one.
Well, Edward, it’s obvious they see homosexuality as a social ill. I don’t agree, but then again I don’t do boycotts.
Well, Edward, it’s obvious they see homosexuality as a social ill.
I won’t credit the point of view in any context other than to note I hope that’s their excuse. Even giving them that benefit of doubt, ignorance is no excuse when it comes to other people’s right to earn a living and have a secure home.
Even giving them that benefit of doubt, ignorance is no excuse when it comes to other people’s right to earn a living and have a secure home.
Then you don’t believe in boycotts. Either they are acceptable when you disapprove of a companys conduct, or they are not.
I think these people are ridiculous, of course, but I can’t fathom the moral calculus that results in their obligation to purchase P & G products.
Edward, I agree with you. But this is one of those issues that people go crazy over. You can’t expect rational behavior from these sorts of people, just as you couldn’t expect rational behavior from the anti-nuclear-power people back in the day.
What you have to keep your eye on is whether a substantial boycott can be performed. If so, there’s a genuine worry. If not, this is just a bunch of moonbats making noise.
Then you don’t believe in boycotts. Either they are acceptable when you disapprove of a companys conduct, or they are not.
In theory I do, but in practice, I think they’re silly.
Point taken, however. I’m not upset about the boycott so much as the free press these folks are getting.
You can’t expect rational behavior from these sorts of people.
Why not? Look at their websites…they look perfectly rational. Smiling families with human faces (not the reptilian ones you’d expect given their cold-blooded mindlessness).
“I’m not upset about the boycott so much as the free press these folks are getting.”
Oh, don’t be upset. Be overjoyed.
American support for intolerance of homosexuals is inversely proportional to the amount of time these people spend in front of a microphone.
If you were really sneaky you’d get as many people as possible on their mailing lists.
If you were really sneaky
What makes you think I’m not?
gotta run…happy weekend all…extra Happy New Year to our Jewish friends!
e
I can’t fathom the moral calculus that results in their obligation to purchase P & G products.
But there is a “moral calculus” that says they shouldn’t be encouraging discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is also a moral calculus that says they shouldn’t misrepresent the reasons P&G is suporting the repeal.
Well — I completely agree that they shouldn’t misrepresent P&G’s actual stance, and of course I also disagree with them on gay marriage. But I think that if this matters to them, they have a right to shop as their conscience dictates. At any rate, I value the right to shop as my conscience dictates, and I only wish it were easier for me to find out such things as: which companies build logging roads into the habitats of great apes, which companies don’t live up to minimal environmental or labor standards, and which companies’ factory conditions endanger their workers’ health. I think that one’s values are among (what economists would call) one’s preferences, and that our purchasing decisions can and should reflect them. I just disagree with these values. If enough of us do, we can outshop them 😉
You can’t expect rational behavior from these sorts of people, just as you couldn’t expect rational behavior from the anti-nuclear-power people back in the day.
Let’s see if we can find a broader brush for Slart.
..
.
Nope.
While it is true that there were a few nuts (e.g., those who opposed the aesthetics of nuke power plants)in the early anti-nuke power movement in the beginning, the movement did lead to a number of benefits to society such as safer plants, alternative energy sources, conservation, and greater environmental awareness.
So, it is fundamentally wrong to equate the anti-nuke movement with a bunch of bigots.
hilzoy,
We agree that people have the right to shop as their consciences dictate. And an organization has the right to urge its members to boycott certain companies.
We also agree that organizations have no right to misrepresent the policies they object to. And that is what these people are doing. How many members of these organizations are going to learn any more about this issue than what they hear from Dobson, et al? So, even leaving aside our shared attitude towards the amendment, there are good reasons to object to what these people are up to. They are not just intolerant, but dishonest as well.
Bernard Yomtov,
But there is a “moral calculus” that says they shouldn’t be encouraging discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is also a moral calculus that says they shouldn’t misrepresent the reasons P&G is suporting the repeal.
Of course. I agree with those principles. But the disagreement should be focused on these particular principles (discrimination is wrong, misrepresenting P&G is wrong) but calling for a boycott, in and of itself, is not wrong.
But it’s perfectly valid to compare one bunch of idiots with another bunch of idiots. I never claimed to be using anything other than a broad brush, so, you know, straw all over.
Oh, that’s nothing. Did you know that liberals and gays want to ban bibles?
Talk about a moral dilemma! I already don’t buy from some of those companies because of their animal testing. But now I want to buy from them to poke a stick in the eye of gay rights opponents. Stupid conscience!
I saw that ban the Bible bit too. I tried to think of something comparable the Left is doing in this campaign, but since I’m probably in support of the more fringe agenda items, I’m not sure I would recognize them as such.
So you Right-Wing Death Beasts…any similarly offensive claims coming from the Left in this campaign?
But it’s perfectly valid to compare one bunch of idiots with another bunch of idiots.
Sure it is. However, trying to claim the entire anti-nuke movement are idiots is well beyond ridiculous given the fact not insignificant numbers of them are scientists. Some are, in fact, quite prominent scientists.
Compared to a bunch of yahoos whose sole focus in life seems to be a weird interest in the sexual activity of others?
I’m sure that somewhere, some oddball on the left has said something comparable to saying that the Democrats want to ban the Bible. But I’m equally sure that there is nothing remotely comparable that has been said either by the Kerry campaign or by the DNC.
I keep wondering: is there anything the RNC might do that would strike large numbers of Republicans as so low that they would not tolerate it?
is there anything the RNC might do that would strike large numbers of Republicans as so low that they would not tolerate it?
Suggest a tax increase?
Celebrating death or defeat of American soldiers might do it. Expressing hope that our soldiers meet with a grisly death might do it. Supporting our adversaries might do it.
Just to name a few.
“Celebrating death or defeat of American soldiers might do it. Expressing hope that our soldiers meet with a grisly death might do it. Supporting our adversaries might do it.
Just to name a few.”
Hmm. That can’t really be Slarti. Time for a blog exorcism, I think:
In the name of hilzoy the fair, Moe the righteous, and Giblets the omnipetent, I command the dark side of the blogopshere to leave this innocent commenter. Begone, ye dark powers of dishonesty and bullying! Foul spirit of Glenn Reynolds, I name thee and I CAST THEE OUT!
Now, back to the original topic.
Heh. Thanks, I needed that. I think.
Thank you, Marguerite. A well-performed exorcism, conducted in timely fashion. 😉
Slarti–glad you didn’t take offense. I’m sure I’ll need you or someone else right of center to return the favor in the weeks ahead, so next time I get all “Aaaiii! They are here! All of them! Shrub-Crawfordath! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young! Donald Rumsfeld! Aaaiii! Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Krugman R’lyeh wagn’nagl fhtagn! Aiiiiiii!!!” don’t hesitate to break out the holy water.
If an organization (or an individual, come to that) wants to achieve something by calling for a boycott of a company’s products, it’s a prerequisite that they need to be clear about what they want to accomplish. And it’s a perfectly fair form of campaigning if the organization is upfront about (a) why the boycott of this company’s products (b) what is to be accomplished as a result of the boycott.
Point (a) makes the boycott fair to the company – they know what they have to do to stop the boycott, and it’s up to them if they decide it’s worth doing. Point (b) makes the boycott fair to the supporters of this campaign – they know what they’re trying to accomplish, and it’s up to them if they decide it’s worth doing.
If the American Family Association and Focus on the Family have claimed that the boycott on Proctor and Gamble’s products is because P&G “support gay marriage”, then their boycott fails on both (a) and (b): P&G can’t “stop supporting gay marriage” if they never started supporting it in the first place, and the supporters of AFA and FotF’s boycott are being misled, if they’re being told that the objective is to stop P&G “supporting gay marriage”.
If the AFA and FotF have claimed only that P&G’s support of repealing Article 12 in Cincinnati is equivalent to supporting gay marriage, then their boycott campaign passes point (a) (P&G are being told clearly that they must not support Article 12) but fails point (b) – they’re misleading their own supporters by being unclear. Article 12 in Cincinnati does not relate to gay marriage but to laws against discriminating against gay people. Many people who object to gay marriage do not object to anti-discrimination laws.
But this is the first I’d heard of it, and frankly I do not wish to go root through AFA and FotF websites to find out what they are saying. Ick. Sticky. Therefore my comments are conditional only.
Guess which party is sponsoring the following:
So you Right-Wing Death Beasts…any similarly offensive claims coming from the Left in this campaign?
I’m a Left-Wing Death Beast, but I think some of the far-out hyperventilating about Bush making dissent a crime might be parallel. I hate the “first amendment zone” idea as much as the next guy, but we’re hardly on track to become a police state here.
Actually, we need to be a touch careful about this “shopping our conscience” business. Jeg makes good points, and I suppose we could add that only boycotts aimed at behavior that affects others are OK. Hence boycotting for political purposes is acceptable, but boycotting, say, gay-owned businesses is not. Even here the line is not perfectly bright.
I think It is clearly unacceptable to organize a boycott of black-owned businesses on racist grounds, for example. But suppose the owners are supporting some sort of legislation a group disagrees with – affirmative action laws, for example, or, in the Jim Crow era, the repeal of segregation laws. Would it then be OK to boycott with the claim that the boycott was only aimed at defeating the legislation (assuming the claim is true)?
May we boycott Democrats or Republicans, according to our preferences? Smacks a bit of intimidation to me, especially in an area where one party is dominant.
I have no conclusions here, but it strikes me that there is a difference between me “shopping my conscience” as an individual, and an organized boycott.
Bernard, you make good points, too.
I’m bending over backwards to be fair to these two groups, because I hate them so much. But I acknowledge they have a right to campaign their brand of politics – if they’re being upfront about what they’re doing. And if what’s being reported that they’re doing is accurate, they are being a little too fuzzy about what they’re doing – not quite as dishonest as the “liberals want to ban the Bible” campaign, but still not strictly honest. And I do think that if you’re asking people to boycott a company as part of a political campaign, you owe it to your supporters to be completely honest about why you’re asking them to boycott the company.