Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
If after eight years, a boycott doesn't hamper Disney, I fail to see how the Southern Baptists' continuation of said boycott would have a) prevented this or b) made anyone at Disney care what the SB's think.
To your second post, Disney has been very pro-gay for a long time now. If you're just now figuring that ouw you AREN'T worrying about the politcal implications of the policies of the businesses you frequent. Their allowal of these ceremonies really does jack shit politcally. It's just fun and lets them waste humongous amounts of money equally with straight people.
They're not issuing marriage licenses to couples who cannot legally marry under state law.
|
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"? )
Threaded Mode
