Prop8 Boycott List- Page 4

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 10:27pm

I just canceled this boycott. I boycotted grapes and Coors beer.

I'm over boycotts.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 10:42pm

Yeah, like boycotting Coors is some sort of punishment. :)

There used to be a little dive down the street from me when I lived in St Louis called El Pollo Loco, but I don't think they were any relation. iMe gusta!
Updated On: 11/14/08 at 10:42 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 10:46pm

If boycotts worked, that would be one thing. For me, I would prefer to not give my money to a company that has supported discrimination against me. So it's more personal than thinking I will make a point. Though, if we all were able to say something when asked, that might make a point--if said company was telemarketing me or something.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 11:02pm

Someone should create a girlcott.

Boycotts are boring, but a girlcott could totally get the HSM crowd.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 11:17pm

I could really go for some manicotti right now.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 10:40am

The plot thickens...

There's an article in today's L.A. Times about the El Coyote Restaurant controversy.

She's his DAUGHTER, not his niece. She's the manager of the restaurant. And she's a Mormon. She contributed $100 to the YES on 8 campaign.

It says hundreds of protestors descended upon the restaurant Wednesday night, and the police in riot gear had to be called in.

The owner is "out of town" right now.

I'm wondering about this whole "niece" thing. Who said she was his niece in the first place? She's the owner's daughter, a manager, and a Mormon who contributed to ban our rights.

And a note for Phyllis: I realize that boycotting doesn't mean much to you. You don't own a business. If you did, and it was being targeted for a boycott, I have a feeling you'd feel differently about it.

[Anakela]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 11:04am

I think she was the niece of the founders/original owners, and is now daughter of the current owner? This profile piece from a couple of years ago (2006) explicitly refers to her as their niece-
Larchmont Chronicle: EL COYOTE

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 3:01pm

This is the Wedding Chapel that I got married in. They were open on Election Day (as opposed to the Gay Wedding Chapel on SM Blvd). They have been targeted by bigots who vandalized the front of the building, and tore down banners with same sex couples on them.

Support Those Who Support Us!

[Anakela]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 3:09pm

Richard Raddon, Director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, $1500 to Yes on 8.
Proposition 8 contributions (screencap from the database)

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 3:19pm

And a note for Phyllis: I realize that boycotting doesn't mean much to you. You don't own a business. If you did, and it was being targeted for a boycott, I have a feeling you'd feel differently about it.

Well, it's not that. I mean, I boycott places (like Wal-Mart), on principle, but I just don't see it as effective way to accomplish anything here. What's the ultimate goal of this boycott? To have them contribute money to a NO on 8 campaign? An apology, like the one we got from Scott Whatshisbutt?

You are right, I don't own a business, so I don't know what it feels like to be targeted for a boycott; but if I was being targeted by a small group of people I actively despised I can't imagine I'd have any thought except "good riddance."

Unless we're trying to get all these people fired, which is maybe what I'm missing.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 4:42pm

Seriously, Phyllis? Do I have to explain to you how a boycott works and why they are an effective nonviolent means of protest?

... And we're not that small. And it's not just gay people honoring the boycott. I assume you've been watching the news lately on some level.

Sometimes I think you post things like that just to be contrary.

I know it's not that you're clueless.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 4:45pm

Sometimes I think you post things like that just to be contrary

Sometimes I do. But in this case I'm not.

I understand how boycotts work; I just don't understand how this one will (and I'm still unclear as to what will be an indication that this one has worked) is all.

[Q]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 5:01pm

"what will be an indication that this one has worked"

I'm curious about that, as well. Usually a boycott has a specific goal in mind - ie, getting Coors to change its corporate policies. I don't see what this is supposed to lead to, except perhaps punitive monetary retribution (which isn't necessarily something I don't understand!)

It's not like they can go back and remove the donations, or re-vote, or . . . well, anything really. So, I guess it's just about showing them what their actions can bring about - by hitting them where it counts.

The whole thing STILL seems far to nebulous and wide-ranging to my eyes. And the more I see and hear people chanting 'boycott' when the links to overt discrimination are tangential at best, the more I see villagers storming up the hillside with pitchforks and torches.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 5:03pm

It hasn't worked yet, Phyllis. Boycotts don't work overnight. They work over time.

A boycott is an active protest. Why do people boycott? To make an impact on a business or establishment and drive a point across without resorting to violence.

A boycott on a single (non-chain) restaurant like El Coyote could hurt them a lot. If hundreds of people all over the area decide not to eat there anymore, that's thousands of dollars lost on an ongoing basis, over a continued period of time. And restaurant attendance is down in general, due to the economy. Will it drive them out of business? No. Will it hurt them economically? Absolutely. It'll be a hard candy Christmas for them. It's a very legal way of punishing them for their hate. They can hate all they want to without my dollars helping to buy their clothes or cars or gifts. And hopefully, they will realize that by alienating and helping to take away the rights of a group of citizens, they have brought this action upon themselves.

So, yes, they need our patronage. And her $100 contribution and her continued vocal support of YES on 8, will cost her business many thousands of dollars in return.

I guess I figured this was obvious.

As far as larger organizations, the more people across the country that honor a boycott the more impact it has. Again, it's thousands of dollars on an ongoing basis.

It's not a one time "hit." It's not something you do today, and then watch the news tomorrow to see a result. It takes time, and the more we don't buy their products or food or services, the more impact it has.

What are we attempting to achieve? Awareness, above all else. Also a bit of nonviolent, sweet revenge. They took something away from us, we'll take something away from them. Simple math. But people will talk, when profits go down. They look for reasons and solutions to get their profits back up again. I'm sure it makes a lot of people very tense to know that denying others equal rights has cost them many thousands of dollars of revenue, and it continues, day after day and month after month. And yes, people could easily lose their jobs over it in time. But ultimately I (personally) hope it makes people understand that they can't just pull a lever or fill in a little circle to take something away from me and not be held accountable for that action of hate.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 5:14pm

I thank you for spelling it all out. I'm really not trying to be difficult - though I understand that when it comes to me that can be hard to believe :) - but isn't a boycott to get people to change their policies (stop harming animals, stop discriminatory hiring practices, for just two examples that come to mind) - even if a boycott of the restaurants or Amex or whatever DOES make an impact, what do they tangibly have to do to get the boycott to be rescinded?

But ultimately I (personally) hope it makes people understand that they can't just pull a lever or fill in a little circle to take something away from me and not be held accountable for that action of hate.

And on that, you get no argument from me!


ETA - And I get it's not a one time hit and that these things work over time, if they work at all. That's a lesson the "stay home for a day" folks need to grasp, not me.
Updated On: 11/14/08 at 05:14 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 5:31pm

Yes, the "stay home for a day" or "don't buy gas for a day" folks aren't going to effect much (if any) impact.

A boycott is an active, ongoing protest.

That's it. Very simply. (and very effectively, over time)

The USA is boycotting several countries now, and has been for years.

Individual people and groups use boycotting as a protest for many reasons and to achieve many things.

I personally wouldn't place any goal on a boycott of the supporters of YES on 8, other than to create awareness and make a clear point: we will hurt you financially if you take away our rights. Even if it's just one less Christmas present that you can afford to buy this year, or a new car, or house, or mortgage payment... we've affected their lives directly. Just like they've affected ours.

They are held accountable by us for their actions.

Legally. Nonviolently.

They can't take something away from us, and ask us to buy something from them for their own benefit and profit, at the same time.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 5:36pm

A boycott is an active, ongoing protest.

Except, as I understand boycotts, they are ongoing only to the point when your demands are met. Unless these aren't really boycotts, and we're just advocating not to do business with these people - and there is a difference there, however slight it may seem.

The USA is boycotting several countries now, and has been for years.

Like embargoes and stuff? Those I have measurable and tangible solutions, even if they are farfetched. "Hey Cuba, stop being Communist!"

I personally wouldn't place any goal on a boycott of the supporters of YES on 8

Then I'm back to not quite understanding. What's the point of any sort of action if you have no goal? And I've yet to have one person give me any sort of tangible goal for these boycotts.
Updated On: 11/14/08 at 05:36 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 5:42pm

" What's the point of any sort of action if you have no goal? And I've yet to have one person give me any sort of tangible goal for these boycotts."

Phyllis, it was in my previous post. Oy!

"I personally wouldn't place any goal on a boycott of the supporters of YES on 8, other than to create awareness and make a clear point: we will hurt you financially if you take away our rights. Even if it's just one less Christmas present that you can afford to buy this year, or a new car, or house, or mortgage payment... we've affected their lives directly. Just like they've affected ours.

They are held accountable by us for their actions.

Legally. Nonviolently.

They can't take something away from us, and ask us to buy something from them for their own benefit and profit, at the same time."

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 5:46pm

I did read that! But... especially in this economy, how is that really measurable? And is one less Christmas present really in any way the equivalent of donating to Prop 8?

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 6:02pm

Go ahead and buy things from the people who voted to take away some of your rights, Phyllis.

If it will make you feel better, then do it.

[Q]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 7:03pm

Besty - I don't think that's what he's arguing FOR at all. It's just that this is being discussed publicly as a measured group 'response' specifically to the Prop 8 situation.

Speaking only for myself, I obviously see the merit in not contributing to those who actively move against us - but as PRS points out, the measure of that effect is basically an impossibility. So in the context of looking for a measured group response to the situation, this just doesn't seem to carry much weight.

Is it a good thing to do for those with a conscience? Sure, absolutely. Is it something that ultimately can be pointed to and used in persuasive public discourse? I don't think so. For that, I look to the legal recourses of action being taken.
Updated On: 11/14/08 at 07:03 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 7:23pm

I don't think we should look to any single course of action or avenue to turn this around, including legislature (which is the most important, of course).

I think we should work toward legal change, but also protests and boycotts can both play a role in having our presence felt and our voices heard. We need people to talk about this, get their feelings out in the open, and work to change them.

But if you're going to reduce it to a debate about taking your cheese burrito order someplace else this week, or not, so be it.

I just can't believe how narrow in scope that is.

It's as narrow as thinking "one vote" doesn't count, so why bother.

Updated On: 11/14/08 at 07:23 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 8:44pm

Various people in the community are coming up with things that are as effective as--and possibly more effective than--boycotts.

I'm afraid these boycotts will only serve to harness negative energy and aim it as targets that are too small.

Do something positive. Join the impact.
http://www.jointheimapact.com

Or use the next seven weeks to get closer to equality.
http://www.sevenweekstoequality.com/petition

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 8:47pm

I hear you. Every time I see a Californian on tv flabbergasted that the popular vote would come out against them I am shocked how narrow their viewpoint is. Every time I hear Arizona, California, and Arkansas mentioned, I think about Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Tennessee, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wyoming, Alabama , Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Two weeks ago we couldn't escape "As California goes, so goes the nation" meme, to which I replied, "I think we're about to see how the nation goes, so does California." Sometimes there's no pleasure in being right.

[Q]

Posted: 11/16/08 at 2:39pm

Franklin Templeton Investments.

Does anyone have a source for their involvement with the Prop 8 situation? I've tried to do some research, and haven't come up with anything. The TinMan's former school district uses them to handle retirement funds, so I want to follow through with this.