Proposition 8 Backlash: What's Wrong with Discriminating Against Those Who Want to Discriminate?

After reading an article in the Los Angeles Times today about whether there should be "boycotts, blacklists, firing or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8," it didn't take more than a moment for me to come up with a response: Why the hell not?

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this issue, as no one I've heard or read has called for rounding the bastards up and putting them in concentration camps, or doing them physical harm or taking away their civil rights. Most of the outrage I've witnessed deals with not wanting to associate on a professional level with people who promote a political objective to interfere with a person's right to have the same joy in their lives that the majority of Americans have.

Most occupational situations are at will, which means that, barring a violation of no-nos prohibited by government statute, many of us can be fired just like that. It can be a simple fact that the boss doesn't like us or finds our work habits, even when successful, not to his liking.

Why then should it surprise us that when people publicly support a statute limiting the rights of a fellow human being, some of those human beings and their supporters might rise up and say, "Well, we can't stop you from voting the way you have, but we're sure not going to make it profitable for you or desire your presence in our work premises anymore."

We liberals tend to bend over backwards to appear fair and say, "Well, is this stance any different than a boycott of companies that promote gay rights?" This is an apples and oranges point of view, because in the case just stated it is a stance taken by people who want to perpetuate inequality and discrimination. These people are intruding in the lives of others -- people who have no effect at all on the hate mongers, except a presumed disturbance of the bigoted lifestyle they want to maintain.

On the other hand, those who rise up against the forces who want to impose their religious and so-called moral beliefs on the public at large and thus prevent loving couples from legally sanctifying their union, are in effect mimicking Paddy Chayefsky's famous words from Network: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."

They're not throwing stones at the contributors' cars or burning their houses and certainly shouldn't be. However, taking a stand against those who discriminate is moral, legitimate and the correct stance to take. Just as the blacks boycotted the Montgomery, Alabama city buses when they were only permitted to ride in the rear sections.

This is not just a question of not liking a person's politics. Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, most of the issues in disagreement involve economics or our foreign policy. And although I admit to being disappointed when one of my favorites doesn't hew to my political philosophy, I can get over it if I can respect him or her as a decent citizen of our planet.

But when hate or smugness affects our neighbor's quality of life and places him or her on a pedestal below, it deprives that person of the chance to be happy and fulfilled. It bespeaks a policy that says "I'm better than you are, and since I have the votes I'm going to prove it with the force of law."

People with that attitude should be punished in a manner that they'll well understand. They must suffer, not with physical torture or incarceration, but with economic retribution, which is the most civilized and fairly meted out solution. Why should those whom they have hurt help them prosper and why should those who are equally offended do likewise? Let these prejudiced souls work and interact with those whose views share their desires to hurt others. If this is blacklisting of a sort then it's of a stripe I can support, as I have little use for those who interfere with the well-being and happiness of their fellow men and women.

Comments

[DMSmith]

Thank you!
I refuse to support knowingly those who believe I am less than equal to them. I should not be expected to.
It is they who have chosen to separate me out. So be it.
As Cartman would say: "Screw you - I'm going home!"

[go]

I don't know who is driving the bus on the protests but I wonder if the most effective tactics are being employed. If it is really believed that anger and attacks are going to work in advancing a cause great, go for it. But I wonder, especially in light of the approaching holidays if displays of anger are the best way to move people. I would suggest carolers and small classical groups playing Christmas songs outside of the Mormon Temples. I also think some silent candlelight vigils might be wise. Besides anger I think we should all be saddened that many have chosen to be so narrow minded and cruel.
Also how about celebrating and thanking the millions who did support the cause. A nice Christmas carrot might do more good than an ugly Noel stick.

[Romulus]

Great! Let's ALL blacklist people and business that don't agree with out political points of view. Why don't all those who oppose same-sex marriage boycott all people and business that support same-sex marriage? Why don't all people who oppose single-payer health care boycott all business and people who support it? And on and on.

[Michael Russnow - Huffpost Blogger]

It's not at all a question of having different political views.

If you don't see the difference between those who are trying to take away or deny rights and those who are simply fighting to have the same rights as others then I see no point in trying to persuade you.

[Romulus]

And you think that boycotting or blacklisting people or businesses is going to persuade them, Michael?

[Romulus]

I don't see marriage as a fundamental right regardless of what Earl Warren said in Loving vs. Virginia. Justices make mistakes just like the rest of us. Look at the Dred Scott case. What I do see as a fundamental right is co-habitation, regardless of gender, and a complete sharing of lives and fortunes. I believe that the government should recognize any relationship between two consenting adults as legal co-habitation with equal rights.

Marriage, to me, is a social compact and society has the right to define marriage anyway it wants. That's a political point of view. Are you going to boycott me now for my poitical point of view?

[WestCoastBuckeye]

Thanks for this post, Michael! I'm committed to keeping my money away from businesses who employ people who donated money to Prop. 8, and this article articulated the reasons why better than I ever could. If you worked to discriminate against your fellow man, there's a price to pay. While your employer may not agree with your viewpoint, they're going to pay the price for your bigotry.

How else can I be sure I'm not indirectly supporting bigots and their causes?

My lone disagreement with your article lies with one word in your opening paragraph (and it's an L.A. Times quote, not your words): "Firing" someone for their political beliefs, no matter how awful those beliefs may be, can not be justified, in my opinion. A person's performance in that job, and his/her ability to keep their opinions from interfering with their ability to do that job, should be the considerations for their employment.

That said, if I (and thousands like me) know you financed the passage of Prop. 8, your employer is one that will not see my business.