From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Inconsistency re CO boycott
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:09:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Nov10.020935.27842
Distribution: soc
Organization: insert anything here

axtell@cray.com (Maureen Axtell) writes:
>Bob writes:

>>Would someone arguing the anti-boycott case care to explain just why
>>"business as usual" should prevail in CO without relying on the
>>basically irrelevant fact that a successful boycott could hurt
>>everyone in the state.

>Well Bob,
>I'll try.

	Nice try, but see below.

>First of all, it's not your states economy a boycott would mess with,
>it's mine.  And I may be selfish, but I'd really like to stay employed.

	So, move.  It's my money.  Next.

>Second, a boycott is going to hand CFV and other such organizations
>more amunition in their fight to prove 'we' are not good for Colorado.
>'We' just might threaten 'their' livelihoods and give them yet another
>cause to hate us.

	Only if they can somehow get a lot of $$$ to offset the boycott
$$$. Otherwise people are going to see that the CFV put them into this.
"OK you said vote yes on 2, we did and now we're starving... what are you
going to do now?  And no, I don't have any $$$ to give your church,
nor am I interested in Dead Sea Scroll lawn furniture..."

	Next.

>Third, a boycott is not going to hurt CFV or affect the business leaders
>in any significant way.  It will not hurt everyone in the state, it
>will hurt the poor, a lot of women, racial minorities, and the gay
>community.  Every openly gay person here is going to have to wonder
>when their job will be lost, because their 'community' is 'helping'
>them by boycotting the company whose employing them.

	Than I suggest those people start writing letters, and making
their presence heard.  In case you hadn't figured it out the whole
idea of a boycott is to influence the powers-that-be.  Free clue:
COlorado is more concerned about theur citizens than pissed off GBLO*
people from the outside.  Therefore Coloradoans saying "hey - 2 was
a BAD thing - I'm getting hurt by this" is going to mobilize
it's repeal/nullification.

	Which of course is the goal.

	The faster you act the faster it gets taken care of.  The more
you care the more you'll act.

	Next.

>Fourth, when we're all out of work, whose gonna help you when CFV or
>OCA targets YOUR state?  And believe me, they will.

	Of course they will.  They have a precedent now.  What
we're trying to do is stop that from happening by showing
the consequences of such irresponsibility.

	Get it?

	You're *supposed* to upset at the threat of a boycott.

	Otherwisethey don't work.

	but make no mistake - the  boycotters, being consumers
ALWAYS HAVE the right to not give you patronage.  Andthey don't have
to be rational.  They can decide not to shop there because your
companiy's logo is blue.  They can decide not to shop there because
it's not economically viable.  They can decide to not shop there 
because in doing so they'd be tacitly supporting homophobia.

	Get it?

	The idea is that you recognizing that the boycott WILL BE
effective should immediately redirect your energy, not at the boycotters
but at the state/CFV who put you int hat position.

	I think you should get started.

>In this age of family values, and xtians using their religions as
>marketing stratgies, do we really expect for colorado to care if
>we boycott?  

	Let's find out.  After all my money IS my money.

>Have we got enough support that colorado businesses would
>even notice the impact? 

	Let's find out.  After all my money IS my money.

>And can we assure that the fundies wouldn't be
>able to use a boycott to their own advantage - specifically using the
>buying power of their memberships against ours. Also, lets realize that
>the fundies have considerably more money to use as bait; and that money
>makes the world  (or at least business) go round.  

	Oooooh - a clue might be forming.  Now why do you suppose
they use boycotts?  Because perhaps they work?

	If 2 had gone down in flames do you think the Fundies would
be spilling $$$ into the state?

	If $$$ makes the world go 'round then shouldn't we as concerned 
citizens be able to choose freely who gets it?  And that includes
at least for me making sure that my $$$ isn't refunneled into 
actively or tacitly supprting my extermination?

>Somehow I don't
>think a straight business person is going to give a damn about gay
>discrimination; they just want to make a profit.

	Well, then - they can do so with my $$$.  They make
their decision, they accept the responsibilities.  Colorado
made a decision, they can accept the responsibilities.

>Surely, with all the bright minds in this community, we can drop the
>idealistic nonsense for a while, and come up with an effective response.

	I think it's spelled  B-O-Y-C-O-T-T.   From everything
you've said it seems to be the most direct, logical, and active
response anyone can take.

>-maureen

	Now since you've expoounded on why a boycott would be 
damaging, perhaps you should tell the people that run Colorado that
and ask them to get 2 off the books as soon as possible?

	Wouldn't that be a a good way to spend your energy, time and money?

	You can find a lot of addresses, etc. bby reading this group.

	I myself hope that the threat of a boycott is enough to
mobilize people.  the fact that several people here have indicated
that they are scared (And for good reason) says to me that the
boycott IS effective.  If we can all channel that into energy aimed
at the Colorado government, this WILL be overturned *quickly*,
*solidly* and *forcefully* and none of our friends and
family will be impacted.

	In addition, it will send a clear signal to the rest of the 
country: we're not going back, we're not hiding anymore, and we will
stand our ground.  PLaying politics is a slow process - look at how
long it has taken 6 states to pass anti-discrimination laws?
In New York this has been a *twenty year* battle and is still not over!
IT's time that we all take responsibility - if $$$ is an effective
tool then we should use it.

	I have to admit, were this Massachusetts, I don't know how
I'd be reacting.  I'd like to think that I'd see this as clearly as
I claim to now.  Probably I wouldn't - no one is perfect and it's
hard to see the larger picture when you're unde r the knife.
I don't begrudge Coloradoans being upset at the potential fallout of
a massive GBLO* boycott - but that energy should be channeled
as much as possible to the powers that be.

	On the other hand I don't know how much effect I can have
with my paltry salary.  I really doubt I can put anyone under.
But like Maureen, and others have said $$$ talks.  I can and will
(and have) wirite letters and make phonecalls, but that's noise
coming from a non-voter.  For the people living there, this is the
time to scream bloody murder!  For the people not living there,
this is also the time to scream, but let's face it the language
that works best across state lines is $$$.  Surely that has
been demonstrated, in South Africa, in Vietnam, etc.

	Yes, there are victims.  But *we* are the oppressed minority,
and this is our voice.  We weren't heard on 11/3, that doesn't mean
we're going to shut up now.  It's sort of clueless to shout "but
we'll be victimized by your boycott" when you've just removed
more of our rights, esp. when in most places we don't have any to
start with.

	There are several options.  None of them are easy.
I hope you don't choose poorly.

BBC