I think you're kind of missing the point I was trying to make but maybe I was unclear.

First off, I don't care what Disney does one way or the other. I haven't been to Disney since I was six and it has nothing to do with their policies about gay people. On the other hand, letting gay folks have pretend marriages there doesn't make it worth a trip as far as I'm concerned either.

Yes, I know that Disney has viewed as pro-gay by the Southern Baptist for a long time (are they really especially pro-gay or are they simply equal?) But consider that the Baptist certainly must realize that they couldn't affect the Disney policies, and yet, choosing as a group to decide not to support the business reinforces the group belief and group unity. It's not really about hurting Disney; it's about refusing to say, "Oh well, even though Disney doesn't share our values, we'll keep going there. Let's give them our money anyway." It's about the Southern Baptists, not about Disney.

If you believe a business is acting in a way that reinforces immoral behavior (and I am not prepared to say that's what the Disney wedding stuff does, by any stretch, but I think the SBs will), do you continue to go to that business? I tend to think that people of principle refuse to go to that business even if they don't expect the business to change the behavior because of their boycott.

I was under the impression that to end the boycott in 2005 some fences were mended with the Southern Baptists, and I was surprised considering that I expect actual legal same sex marriage to be pretty much right around the corner, that Disney felt like they needed to be out in front with their pretend weddings when they could wait, keep the same policy, and avoid pissing a big "family" group off.

(I'd have to do more research, but think about previous sponsors of the Boy Scouts who dropped them over BSA's refusal to amend their policies about homosexual members. Did you expect them to revisit the issue in a few years if the boycott didn't work or did you expect them to only sponsor the group again if they changed their policies?

In a non homosexually centered example, if one were say, a free trade coffee supporter, would you expect such a person to only boycott drinking non-free trade coffee in so far as the boycott was actually successful and freely give in to the purchase of non-free trade coffee if it turned out that someplace you wanted to go didn't response to you boycott? In good conscience this person could say, "well it didn't work, whatever"? )

They're pro-equality which to some people means pro-gay. They've provided same-sex partner benefits for a while now and have hosted some sort of gaydays at Disney. They're not hiding it.

I'm saying that clearly Disney did not care what the SB's though during the 8 year boycott, which apparently did little more than provide Disney with free advertisement, as eight years later they had not changed their policies or actions.

Even if it is only about money to Disney (and it's always at least partially about money) I'm not sure why they'd care about pissing off a demographic whose non-attendance didn't affect their bottom line for eight years. They're anticipating making more money from this change.

If the majority of people who attended southern baptist churches really participated in the boycott, it might have mattered.

So your point is simply that I shouldn't have been surprised that Disney didn't care about who they pissed off? Okay.

You think not participating means that they aren't really following through the boycott because then they wouldn't have anything to show on the DVD in the SUV or that they never really supported the ideas behind a boycott in the first place? Is it lack of resolve or lack of support?

Yeah I think they probably agreed with the premise of the boycott, but they don't care enough to boycott the DVDs and toys and whatnot.

This is unsurprising and probably happens a lot with boycotts, but kind of funny in light of the position of principle I was working so hard to carve out for them.

A boycott doesn't work on any level, external or internal, if nobody really boycotts, but they have to be aware of their own hypocrisy the whole time.

I googled to see what I could find out about the end of the boycott in 2005, and this was among the result. Do you even need to click the link to know what it's going to say? Doesn't the web address say it all?

ttp://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Hellivision/boycott_gone.htm

Wow: The author of the site even hates The Chronicles of Narnia. Maybe they missed the memo about the Christian allegory and C.S Lewis and all.

No, my point is that Disney will not care about pissing off people who have no effect on their bottom line. Why would you be surprised that after an 8 year boycott ended by the boycotters the boycotee would still act the same?

How did you miss that?

Shinerbock is potentially correct. If all the SBs really HAD boycotted Disney it might have had an effect, but it was not well supported. (Even LESS of a reason for Disney to give a damn about the SBs' opinions)

I saw the new "Fairy Tale Wedding" position as an acceleration or escalation of a issue that could have been avoided or delayed since resolution of the real issue of gay marriage is, I think, going to happen pretty soon anyway. I agree that one of my very first posts expressing surprise may have been a stupid one, since you are right that Disney has indicated that they don't care about boycotts.

But my big long posts were, I thought, more about why a group might participate in a boycott even if Disney didn't care and wouldn't change its policy. So I was surprised to find out that we were still talking about the effectiveness of a boycott on Disney. I wasn't trying to be a jerk with my last post. I was serious. Okay, it's not surprising, especially considering the track record, that Disney didn't care about the potential for a boycott.

But, the effect on Disney is not, in my opinion, the only reason that a boycott of Disney could be a useful exercise for the SBs as far as I'm concerned. On some level, it may demonstrate to other groups that a SB boycott doesn't hurt you much, and on that level may be counterproductive as far as using boycotts to effect changes in the marketplace. But as far as internal cohesion and a sense of shared purpose, principle, and morality within the group, the boycott could have been effective whether it was crippling for Disney or not. As it turns out, if Shinerbock is right, it didn't even work on that level, so

Secular sexuality neutral society 1
Southern Baptists 0

Alphagamuga, for wasting her time on this argument, finishes behind both groups.

Disney is also coming out with a Disney princess wedding dress line. Woohoo!!! :p

http://bridalwave.tv/2007/02/disney_to_make.html

And it doesn't work if the "boycotters" don't patron Disney, anyway.

"I've never bought a DVD, toy, or gone to their theme park...but I certainly won't now!!!" You probably wouldn't have without this boycott.

Also, what about the other products that Disney sponsors? Doesn't Disney have its brand name on things that aren't obviously Disney?

Exactly. Disney have put their oar in a lot of other ventures. I mean, they own ABC for starters.

Shiner-I knew we would :D but at least we can do it civilly.

I assume it's for women, but you never know anymore. What with the fairy weddings and what-have-you.