|
From the article:
"In 2005, Southern Baptists ended an eight-year boycott of the Walt Disney Co. for violating 'moral righteousness and traditional family values.'"
And now, Disney is allowing people not officially allowed by law to marry in many places to go through the wedding event they offer.
If Southern Baptists were actually following through on the boycott through 2005, do you suppose the decision to offer the weddings to same sex couples will be just be ignored? Maybe it will, and Disney seems committed enough to their beliefs to be firm anyway.
But while certainly the first point of a boycott is to change the practice of company who you are boycotting, but it can also reinforce the resolve and unity of the people engaged in the boycott as a matter of principle.
While I don't care one way or the other about the parties available at Disney at all, I'm not sure that it's ignorant to boycott. Unlikely to change the policy maybe, but that may not be the only point.
Even though I'm not bothered by Disney's decision politically or socially, I'm not really celebrating that Disney found another way to make money. It's hard for me as a matter of taste to get excited about anyone having a Disney wedding, (shouldn't you have gotten over that when you were twelve?), and the silliness of it is compounded by it having no legal significance.
|
Threaded Mode
