Gay Rights??

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 1:02 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xzion- wrote: What about the 10% 50 years ago being called "nigger lovers"
What about the 10% that wanted the US to be free from England?
What about the 10% that have fought for equality for women
In order....

Black people are people. Their population percentage can increase through reproduction.

To clarify, his opening percentage is referring to white people, not black people.

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 13, 2004, 1:11 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xzion- wrote: What about the 10% 50 years ago being called "nigger lovers"
What about the 10% that wanted the US to be free from England?
What about the 10% that have fought for equality for women
In order....

Black people are people. Their population percentage can increase through reproduction.

More than 10% wanted to be free from england.

Women are 50+% of the population.

Gays will always be 10% or less. The population won't replenish itself otherwise. Gay's are an abnormality. An accepted fuckup. No different than all of us knowing a certain percentage will be born unfortunately with downs syndrome, blind, deaf, etc.

Goddammit dude, your ignorance knows no bounds, your making me give up all hope on you.
At first, many people would have never dreamed let alone supported an american revolution, but the liberal ideologies of our founding fathers made people realize that that should be done. Same goes for every major social movement in history
Polls back in the day would have showed 90+% of the country being for "Seperate but equal" laws, but overtime those numbers grew smaller as society progressed and they found the truth

So the difference is
Your philosophy is a philosophy of the past, mines one of the future

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2004, 8:16 am

noel wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xzion- wrote: What about the 10% 50 years ago being called "nigger lovers"
What about the 10% that wanted the US to be free from England?
What about the 10% that have fought for equality for women
In order....

Black people are people. Their population percentage can increase through reproduction.
To clarify, his opening percentage is referring to white people, not black people.

Yeah. My bad.

It's still a populace that can grow. Interracial relationships have the ability to increase while the gay population is completely left to DNA.

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 13, 2004, 10:21 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
noel wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xzion- wrote: What about the 10% 50 years ago being called "nigger lovers"
What about the 10% that wanted the US to be free from England?
What about the 10% that have fought for equality for women
In order....

Black people are people. Their population percentage can increase through reproduction.
To clarify, his opening percentage is referring to white people, not black people.
Yeah. My bad.

It's still a populace that can grow. Interracial relationships have the ability to increase while the gay population is completely left to DNA.

Actually, a lot of girls are now "bisexual" or open to expirementing with members of there own sex, i guess this goes for some guys too but not as much as femails, also a lot of more people are open about there sexuality and gay people no longer live misererable lives as society forced them to get married and have kids as they did in the past, while having a gay affairs similar to the new jersey govenor....this is very visable as you see a lot more gay people in places like western europe, where there much more accepted
....i think its closer to like .5-2% of the population being gay then 10%

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2004, 10:51 am

Young girls screwing around doesn't equate to lesbian. They end up with a guy, getting married, having kids.

The Gov. of NJ, is gay. It has nothing to do with open to new things....LOL. He was always gay. You don't turn gay. You may not realize you are gay at first, but you are gay from birth.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 13, 2004, 11:08 am

I call bullshit on that.
You may be disposed towards loving one gender or another at birth, but it doesn't mean anything. you can still have sex with a woman as a gay man, and a lesbian can have sex with a straight man. You can be bisexual and enjoy the best of both worlds.

But yes, I know some women that are 'bicurious' that are deffinately straight. They're interested in sexual activites with another women, and it's something that grew on them over time - more accurately, they're wodnering what all the fuss is about from their guy friends.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 13, 2004, 11:14 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Young girls screwing around doesn't equate to lesbian. They end up with a guy, getting married, having kids.

The Gov. of NJ, is gay. It has nothing to do with open to new things....LOL. He was always gay. You don't turn gay. You may not realize you are gay at first, but you are gay from birth.

So men who kiss a guy = gay for life, but women who 'screw around' with other women, are not gay?

miir · Post by **miir** » October 13, 2004, 11:15 am

Back to the original topic.

While I don't think a project like this infringes on anyones freedoms, it does nothing to promote understand or acceptance of homosexuals. I'm a consistent supporter of gay rights but this project is just stupid.

What if a Christian or someone of another faith decides to not wear the button. They are branded as a bigot or a homophobe?

By whom?
If someone shows tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals, they would have no fear of being branded with any such label. If I was part of this pilot project, I would stanchly refuse to place any sign or sticker on or near my desk indicating it as a 'Rainbow Zone'. I think it's idiotic... and I don't give a shit if someone wants to label me a homophobe or a bigot.
A sign on or near my desk has no bearing on my attitudes towards gays.

I had a chat with some of my gay friends about this yesterday. They unanimously think that this project is colossally retarded.

It seems christians and fags can agree on some things.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 13, 2004, 11:46 am

I dont care if someone thinks im a bigot, but if im working and it prevents customers from coming to me, then I have to care

miir · Post by **miir** » October 13, 2004, 11:59 am

Sionistic wrote:I dont care if someone thinks im a bigot, but if im working and it prevents customers from coming to me, then I have to care

You see thats the point of doing a pilot for it.
If nobody volunteers to put up a sticker/sign and many of the participants voice concern over it (which I imagine they will), the project will never go past pilot.

Nobody is stopping employees from promoting a 'gay positive' environment in the workplace (outside of this pilot).

If you choose not to openly promote a gay positive workplace, it does not mean that you are a homophobe or bigot.
Capital Markets, where I am currently working is not involved in the pilot. If I was to choose to put up a 'rainbow zone' sign/sticker at my desk, do you think my co-workers would be worried about being branded homophobes?

Your concern is not really valid unless you are secretly repressing your homophobia.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 13, 2004, 12:47 pm

You're the kind of godless, heathen, fag hag that doesn't even have a 12" high statue of Jesus, a cross and an American flag on your desk at work!

miir · Post by **miir** » October 13, 2004, 12:53 pm

Hey, if you don't put an american flag on your desk, are you branded as pro-terrorist?

If a bank teller isn't wearing a pin with the stars and stripes, would you consider them anti-american?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 13, 2004, 1:28 pm

Thess wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Young girls screwing around doesn't equate to lesbian. They end up with a guy, getting married, having kids.

So men who kiss a guy = gay for life, but women who 'screw around' with other women, are not gay?

I'll back Mid up on this one. Yes, women can go to town on each other and it's perfectly fine. All is well in the world. No labeling required. Men, can do the same and there's nothing wrong with it but will probably get tagged as homosexual by many. Check out non gay pr0n mags. You see two women together quite often but....actually, I've never seen a playgirl...do they have two guys going at it? If not, it proves my point that it's acceptable for two women to screw around while two men are more prone to get the tag.

Heterosexual lifemates are popular as well now as seen in Jay and Silent Bob's recent movie.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 13, 2004, 1:34 pm

Miir I have to chuckle. I already stated that wearing a button, sticker or t-shirt to show support for one cause or another is a far cry from a corporation putting a program into place that would naturally lead to a division in the workplace.

Seems we agree that pilot project or not this is a magnificently stupid idea. I would hazard a guess that this project was forwarded by someone who obviously belonged to one of the groups you mentioned earlier in this thread. If pushed I would guess this was the pet project of a gay person simply because handicapped, immigrants and others you mentioned do not need a "Safe zone" further the images used for the sticker are gay related.

So when Aaeamdar goes off about Christians foisting their ideas, principles etc on the public I felt this was a far response to his ongoing commentary on all things Christian.

Cheers.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 1:54 pm

Get a life.

Trias · Post by **Trias** » October 13, 2004, 2:02 pm

baby alvis weeps for you all!

miir · Post by **miir** » October 13, 2004, 2:03 pm

Trias wrote:baby alvis weeps for you all!

Hi hun...

!!!EGAR

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 13, 2004, 2:05 pm

noel wrote:Get a life.

Hi Noel, enjoying the life you have? Troll?

Cheers

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 2:09 pm

Atokal wrote:
noel wrote:Get a life.
Hi Noel, enjoying the life you have? Troll?

Cheers

My life is not what's in question. What is in question is your need for attention that is so strong, you have to make proverbial mountains out of mole hills on an almost weekly basis. Try just for a few minutes to be a real Christian that doesn't pass judgement on others, doesn't try to force your ideals on others, and lets others live as they choose. There is nothing within the gay lifestyle that's hurting you, so step down off of your opressed-by-the-gays soapbox, and quit wasting our time with your idiotic posts.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » October 13, 2004, 2:29 pm

PS - Happy Coming Out Day!!

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 13, 2004, 3:48 pm

noel wrote:
Atokal wrote:
noel wrote:Get a life.
Hi Noel, enjoying the life you have? Troll?

Cheers
My life is not what's in question. What is in question is your need for attention that is so strong, you have to make proverbial mountains out of mole hills on an almost weekly basis. Try just for a few minutes to be a real Christian that doesn't pass judgement on others, doesn't try to force your ideals on others, and lets others live as they choose. There is nothing within the gay lifestyle that's hurting you, so step down off of your opressed-by-the-gays soapbox, and quit wasting our time with your idiotic posts.

Are you illiterate?
Show one post where I say I have a problem with the gay lifestyle.
When you are done looking I have another task for you my small minded friend, please describe in detail where a circle starts and ends.

Till you have an answer stfu with your idiotic responses

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 13, 2004, 3:57 pm

Atokal wrote:Are you illiterate?
Show one post where I say I have a problem with the gay lifestyle.

how about every single post you make, you stupid fucking retard?

at least the ones you make that aren't stalking me like some creepy sex offender.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 4:10 pm

This just in: if everyone else thinks you have a problem, but you don't; chances are, you're wrong.

It's wonderful for you that you've convinced yourself you're not a bigot and that you stand for some higher moral cause. The rest of us aren't fooled by your veiled discrimination.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 13, 2004, 5:30 pm

noel wrote:This just in: if everyone else thinks you have a problem, but you don't; chances are, you're wrong.

It's wonderful for you that you've convinced yourself you're not a bigot and that you stand for some higher moral cause. The rest of us aren't fooled by your veiled discrimination.

Hahaha proof fucker proof. Now I have you and your shrimpy sidekick making accusations with no proof.

I just want to be clear here. You are a fucking idiot, Kyoukan is a fucking socially retarded moron. Your inability to read, and comprehend is amazing.

Now if you want to accuse me of being unkind to idiots here is your proof.

Have a nice day

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 5:46 pm

When you make posts like that, you're only being unkind to yourself. That said, you're an idiot, so you're right, there's proof.

I don't have or need a sidekick. Kyoukan and I don't always agree. The fact that we agree you're a tool should not be construed as some type of alliance. The majority of people on this forum think you're a tool.

Aslanna wrote:- We wants it. We needs it. Must get in the fnord. They wont hide from me. Sneaky little Veeshan Vaulters. Wicked, trickssssy, falssse!

- No! Not Xouqoa.

- Yes, precious. False. They will cheat you, hurt you, lie.

- Aranuil’s my friend.

- (taunting) You don’t have any friends. Nobody likes YOU...

- Not listening. Not listening.

- You're a liar and a pederast

- (shaking his head) Nope.

- Reee...tard...!

- (starts to cry and whimper) Go away.

- Go away! (cackles) Hahahahaha!

- (cries, whispering) I hate you, I hate you.

- (fiercely) Where would you be without me? I saved us. It was me. We got into PE because of me!

- (resolute) Not anymore.

- (surprised) What did you say?

- Cartalas looks after us now. We don’t need you.

- What?

- Leave now and never come back.

- No!!!

- (louder) Leave now and never come back!

- (bares teeth, growling) Arghhhh!

- LEAVE NOW AND NEVER COME BACK.

- We... we told him to go away! And away he goes, preciousss. (dances around, happily) Gone, gone, gone! Atokal is free!

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 13, 2004, 6:55 pm

So when Aaeamdar goes off about Christians foisting their ideas, principles etc on the public I felt this was a far response to his ongoing commentary on all things Christian.

I really lack the time to reply here at length, but phone calls alterted me to thread so I'll pop in for a quicky.

The fact that this program is going on in some corporation has nothing - NOTHING - to do with Christian oppression. That you cannot see this is positively moronic. When (it will never happen), you can come here posting a LAW or other GOVERNMENT action that is PROHIBITS chiristians from doing things it allows other groups to do, expressly based on their CHRISTIANITY, then you will have something.

As some really crystal clear examples - A law that prohibits Christians from getting married. A law that makes it a criminal activity for two Christian adults to have sex. A Miltary rule that prohbits Christians from joining the armed forces.

When you find such a law, please post about it. I'll be glad to join you in your fight to get it repealed.

Not wanting to wear a little button is not what makes the vast lot of Christains bigots - its their overwhelming support of laws (such as those I listed above that apply to gays) specifically designed to deny (or criminalize) gays from various activities allowed to non-gays.

As for the program - while it is certainly not a case of the oppression of Christians - it is a stupid program and if I worked for the company, I would not wear the little button or put up the little sign. That program is monumentally stupid.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » October 13, 2004, 8:06 pm

Aslanna wrote:- We wants it. We needs it. Must get in the fnord. They wont hide from me. Sneaky little Veeshan Vaulters. Wicked, trickssssy, falssse!

- No! Not Xouqoa.

- Yes, precious. False. They will cheat you, hurt you, lie.

- Aranuil’s my friend.

- (taunting) You don’t have any friends. Nobody likes YOU...

- Not listening. Not listening.

- You're a liar and a pederast

- (shaking his head) Nope.

- Reee...tard...!

- (starts to cry and whimper) Go away.

- Go away! (cackles) Hahahahaha!

- (cries, whispering) I hate you, I hate you.

- (fiercely) Where would you be without me? I saved us. It was me. We got into PE because of me!

- (resolute) Not anymore.

- (surprised) What did you say?

- Cartalas looks after us now. We don’t need you.

- What?

- Leave now and never come back.

- No!!!

- (louder) Leave now and never come back!

- (bares teeth, growling) Arghhhh!

- LEAVE NOW AND NEVER COME BACK.

- We... we told him to go away! And away he goes, preciousss. (dances around, happily) Gone, gone, gone! Atokal is free!

Shit, I'd forgotten all about that. Pure genius! Lets see Cartalas doing a Taxi Driver impersonation now!

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » October 13, 2004, 10:01 pm

Only Playgirl I've ever seen was over 30 years ago, and was strictly single non-sexual nudes. Times have changed of course, no idea what may be in them now.

*Hugs*
Varia

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 13, 2004, 11:47 pm

Winnow wrote:
Thess wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Young girls screwing around doesn't equate to lesbian. They end up with a guy, getting married, having kids.

So men who kiss a guy = gay for life, but women who 'screw around' with other women, are not gay?

I'll back Mid up on this one. Yes, women can go to town on each other and it's perfectly fine. All is well in the world. No labeling required. Men, can do the same and there's nothing wrong with it but will probably get tagged as homosexual by many. Check out non gay pr0n mags. You see two women together quite often but....actually, I've never seen a playgirl...do they have two guys going at it? If not, it proves my point that it's acceptable for two women to screw around while two men are more prone to get the tag.

Heterosexual lifemates are popular as well now as seen in Jay and Silent Bob's recent movie.

Are you dipshits trying to rationalize your love of lesbian porn against your homophobia? Or are you simply adding sexism to your already stellar list of socially abhorrent trains? I can't even believe you two are THAT fucking insular that you would believe something so blatantly hypocritical.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 11:54 pm

Jice Virago wrote:Are you dipshits trying to rationalize your love of lesbian porn against your homophobia? Or are you simply adding sexism to your already stellar list of socially abhorrent trains? I can't even believe you two are THAT fucking insular that you would believe something so blatantly hypocritical.

That was my read as well...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 14, 2004, 12:55 am

I'm not homophobic in the least. I have zero prejudice against homosexuals and think they should have equal rights. What that boils down to is civil unions for everyone and no marriage should be legally recognized by the government for hetro or homo couples.

Blow it out your asses. My point was how women together is much more accepted than two men together in the non homosexual community.

I love lesbo pr0n too! I don't want to discout that but I went beyond my own fetish and presented the challenge to show me men together in non gay pron mags for women as opposed to many women together in non gay pron mags for men.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » October 14, 2004, 1:14 am

Most women don't find two men together attractive. Lots of men find two women together attractive. It doesn't make either less homosexual than the other. If they don't want to recognize same-sex "marriages" then they should remove all recognition of marriages from government and be strict on the use of the term civil union, because what it boils down to in our society is the same damned thing.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 14, 2004, 1:17 am

Isn't it amazing the amount of energy and emotion born from a moral disagreement?

After all the huffing and puffing is performed, what remains? Have opinions changed, or have they hardened?

If they've hardened, what then is the benefit of arguing about it?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 14, 2004, 1:20 am

Hehehe.. every time there's a gay thread Adex says something about "hardening".

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 14, 2004, 1:34 am

Ah, leave it to a witty one-liner to obscure my point.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 14, 2004, 2:12 am

Zaelath wrote:Hehehe.. every time there's a gay thread Adex says something about "hardening".

Adex said "hardened" and "harden" along with huffing and puffing. It's hard to read his posts without feeling like I'm reading an erotic novel.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 14, 2004, 3:06 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Ah, leave it to a witty one-liner to obscure my point.

That wasn't wit!

I conceed your point, to a point... No one expects to sway the people on the far ends of the spectrum; Dar, Midnite, yourself. They're after the undecided voters

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 15, 2004, 12:48 am

Who here is undecided? Well all seem quite set in our stances.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 15, 2004, 3:01 am

Truthfully I am undecided as to why I am against gay marriage. There are so many good reasons it's hard to pick just one. =p

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 15, 2004, 8:23 am

Aaeamdar wrote:
So when Aaeamdar goes off about Christians foisting their ideas, principles etc on the public I felt this was a far response to his ongoing commentary on all things Christian.
I really lack the time to reply here at length, but phone calls alterted me to thread so I'll pop in for a quicky.

The fact that this program is going on in some corporation has nothing - NOTHING - to do with Christian oppression. That you cannot see this is positively moronic. When (it will never happen), you can come here posting a LAW or other GOVERNMENT action that is PROHIBITS chiristians from doing things it allows other groups to do, expressly based on their CHRISTIANITY, then you will have something.

As some really crystal clear examples - A law that prohibits Christians from getting married. A law that makes it a criminal activity for two Christian adults to have sex. A Miltary rule that prohbits Christians from joining the armed forces.

When you find such a law, please post about it. I'll be glad to join you in your fight to get it repealed.

Not wanting to wear a little button is not what makes the vast lot of Christains bigots - its their overwhelming support of laws (such as those I listed above that apply to gays) specifically designed to deny (or criminalize) gays from various activities allowed to non-gays.

As for the program - while it is certainly not a case of the oppression of Christians - it is a stupid program and if I worked for the company, I would not wear the little button or put up the little sign. That program is monumentally stupid.

Dar I support equal rights for gays. What I was pissed about was your attacks on Christians and your signature. I dont understand how your attacking Christians at any opportunity makes you better than those homophobes who use the same inflammatory rhetoric.

Nuff said.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 15, 2004, 4:35 pm

The Department of Redundancy Department called and wants to remind you that criticising and disliking people who persecute you is not the same as bigotry.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 19, 2004, 1:12 pm

Update:

Royal Bank cancels 'Safe Space' campaign

The Royal Bank has abandoned a voluntary effort to encourage some of its clerks to display rainbow stickers at their desks and cubicles to promote a safe work environment for gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

The Rainbow Space campaign was organized by the "diversity council" within the department of the bank and targeted 2,000 clerks at a Royal Bank "warehouse" in Toronto as well as smaller offices in Mississauga and Guelph.

But the project raised the ire of the Canada Family Action Coalition, a right-wing Christian group which threatened to boycott the bank amid fears the program would brand those who refused to participate as homophobes.

In my opinion it was an ill advised initiative but caving to right-wing, religious nutjob, special interest groups is pretty sad.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 19, 2004, 1:23 pm

You admit it's a bad idea but that it's worse to end it because of a specific group that had the balls to say that they disagreed with it?

Wth Miir?

miir · Post by **miir** » October 19, 2004, 1:33 pm

Akaran_D wrote:You admit it's a bad idea but that it's worse to end it because of a specific group that had the balls to say that they disagreed with it?

Wth Miir?

I'm more concerned about right-wing, christian, special interest groups forcing their agenda on private businesses. They have every right to disagree with it but do they have the right to force their agenda and beliefs on private companies?

What if an athiest group pressured private corporations/businesses with a boycott if employees were permitted to display religious icons on their desks/cubicles?

I realise my example is not really the same thing, but I was just using it to draw a parallel to why I am concerned about companies caving in to these groups.
Where do you draw the line?
At what point do you say NO to these groups trying to push their agenda on private businesses and individuals.

This sets a disapointing precedent.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 19, 2004, 2:04 pm

miir wrote:
Akaran_D wrote:You admit it's a bad idea but that it's worse to end it because of a specific group that had the balls to say that they disagreed with it?

Wth Miir?
I'm more concerned about right-wing, christian, special interest groups forcing their agenda on private businesses. They have every right to disagree with it but do they have the right to force their agenda and beliefs on private companies?

What if an athiest group pressured private corporations/businesses with a boycott if employees were permitted to display religious icons on their desks/cubicles?

I realise my example is not really the same thing, but I was just using it to draw a parallel to why I am concerned about companies caving in to these groups.
Where do you draw the line?
At what point do you say NO to these groups trying to push their agenda on private businesses and individuals.

This sets a disapointing precedent.

The problem is that RBC is not a private company. It's a public company with stockholders and investors. Publicly listed companies have to deal with pressure from interest groups all the time, especially when diversity initiatives such as this one are made public. In some cases management sticks to their principles and tells the special interest group to stuff it. In this case, the company didn't.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 19, 2004, 3:20 pm

If it was an athiest group, it wouldn't phase me. I wouldn't agree with their opinion, but I don't expect them to - and I'd voice my problem with it and pressure the company the same way they are.

It would be a company decision, it doesn't matter who pressed them into it - Christian, Atheist, Gay Pride - whatever.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 19, 2004, 3:36 pm

The problem is that RBC is not a private company. It's a public company with stockholders and investors.

Regardless, this religious group are not stock/shareholders, yet they have directly affected company policy.

Akaran, do you think that special interest groups should be allowed to force their agendas on private (or publicly traded) companies?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 19, 2004, 3:41 pm

I think any consumer has the right to challenge the policies of a buisness that they use the services at - regardless of if it is a multi consumer decision or not and that boycotting a buisness is a perfectly acceptable method of challenging those policies.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 19, 2004, 3:49 pm

Akaran_D wrote:I think any consumer has the right to challenge the policies of a buisness that they use the services at - regardless of if it is a multi consumer decision or not and that boycotting a buisness is a perfectly acceptable method of challenging those policies.

Even when the policy does not affect consumers?

I mean, would it be appropriate for a special interest group to boycott an automobile manufacturer for using Compaq servers?

How does piloting a program to promote homo/bi-sexual acceptance/awareness in the workplace affect the christian customers of a bank? A bank is not a christian institution.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 19, 2004, 3:59 pm

It doesn't matter if it affects customers or not.
A group of people found a companies policies deplorable - ignore the reason.

I have the right to not give my buisness to a company that i know is doing something or stands for something or supports something that I don't like. If I don't like a company policy that I have been made aware of that supports the eating of babies, then I am well within my right not to give my buisness to that company, which in turn is a direct pressure on that company to change the policy.

Do companies change policies for single people? Not very often. Do they do it for groups? Yes. Do I have the right to form a group / be a member of a group with out people that disagres with a policy set forth regardless of weather it directly effects me or not? Yes, I do. Do I, as a company, have the right to ignore or cave to the opinion of that person / that group? Yes. I could say go ahead and boycott, or I could remove the policy.

And to answer your special interest question, yes, it could be entirely appropiate for a special interst group to boycott an automible manufacture for using Compaqs, or Dells, or HPs. If you don't like what a company does, you don't have to shop there, period.