From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Protecting the supportive...
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:59:00 GMT

anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>bcapps@agora.rain.com (Brent Capps) writes:
>>bartlett@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM (Terry Bartlett) writes:

>>>I don't have the addresses of too many Colorado-based businesses,
>>>but some companies to consider are Coors, Storage Technology,
>>>US West and US West Cellular, any subsidiary of TCI, Inc, the
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Not that it's the world's easiest thing to boycott a
>>monopoly, but US West was very supportive of us in the
>>Oregon fight, and even purchased a full page ad in the
>>Voter's Pamphlet urging the defeat of Plan 9 from Outer
>>Space.

>In light of that, perhaps letters and calls to US West
>should start out commending the company for its support in
>the Oregon instance, and mentioning that as planned further
>attacks on civil rights in the western region and elsewhere
>have already been announced, one hopes that kind of support
>will continue.

	Agreed.

>>Still, you've got to break some eggs to make an omlette.
>>Their headquarters is, after all, in Denver.  One tactic
>>might be to suggest to them that they are going to have a
>>lot of difficulty recruiting gay telecom professionals into
>>that kind of hateful environment.

>The more general point would be that all manner of
>interlocking benefits would accrue to companies that
>vigorously promote good citizenship.  "Thanks for your past
>help and here's some more you can do" is certainly a
>legitimate point of view.  I think it's also a wise tactic.
>

	One Denver-area motsseur said over dinner last night that
he was being very careful to pick and choose who he is doing business
with.  This I see as important since we have to bear in mind that
while CO:2 passed, nearly 1/2 of the people voted against it.
He was taking it on a county-to-county basis.

	Does thatm ean I'm backing off on a boycott?  Well, no and
yes.  I think if it can be shown that company XXX did in fact come
out against 2 *beforehand* and *publically*, then it seems only
fair to publically support and patronize their business.  The same
goes for those places that were anti-GBLO* in their efforts.
Certainly someo f the skiing area like Vale were very anti-2.
I don't think it represents hypocrasy to be very watchful of $$$
spent in Colorado and at the same time hold the places you do do
business with as examples to the others.

	This is also I think necessary: for example I called the
Colorado tourism bureau and registered a complaint.  But let's
face it I don't have any plans to spend $$$ in Colorado until
*maybe* next June.  In short, I'm not going to make a dent in their
economy - on the other hand if/when I do have cause to do business
there, active and openly rewarding GBLO*-positive businesses
sets an example, and shows that we appreciate support as well.

	On the other hand, boycotting known phobic or mostly-ambivalent
business is I fell still important.  Oneof the few weapons we have
is our $$$.  We should spend it responsibly.  Knowing how is
onthe "good" list and the "bad" list would help, even at the individual
merchant level!

	So one breaks less "good" eggs, and smashes all the "bad"
ones.

	Perhaps someone could start such a list for motss-folk traveling
to Colorado (let's face it some of us will be going there for work
related purposes, if so let's spend our $$$ [or our companies' $$$]
in the best way possible!) so that we can make informed decisions!

BBC
Xref: sparky soc.motss:46529 soc.bi:14761