My Photo

« Heckuva Job Surgie | Main | On Second Thought... »

November 08, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e2010535e2a75a970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Boycott Utah:

Comments

I think we should boycott Alaska too for being the epitome of a hypocritical intellectually dishonest parasitical red state political culture.

Such a boycott would be a real sacrifice for me since i go up there regularly.

Sadly Utah is my second favorite travel destination.

Since we are talking boycott I hope Washington stae Dems who take the Times will cancel their subscriptions. The Times needs to be punished for lying about Darcy Bruner.

Makes sense, let's punish the whole state for a religion centered there promoting an idea which even the majority of Californians agrees with.

Can we boycott California over Scientology? I think they actually do more damage to the nation as a whole.

Seems like boycotting Mormon businesses, and examining the tax exempt status of the church is a more surgical strike than boycotting Utah. Just pack your own lunch when you go!

Let me throw a contrary note on this, as someone who strongly opposed Prop 8 and put as much money as I could toward that cause.

I live in Salt Lake City, which is by far the most liberal part of the state. We haven't elected a Republican mayor in decades. Our current mayor managed to pass a civil registry in the city, despite strong objections from the legislature. Salt Lake County, which comprises almost half the state's population, just re-elected Howard Dean's cousin as mayor with 70% of the vote. There are many, many Mormon families and groups who fought tooth and nail against Prop 8.

The attack on "Utah" is extremely misguided. Largely, this is because the consequences will fall primarily upon those liberal and business interests that are most supportive of gay marriage and who have already been fighting that fight. Economically attacking these groups won't put anyone in a better position. It won't make the people who gave all that money less inclined, but more. There is nothing that an economic crunch on the state will do to change the Church's stance, which is all that matters. What you are likely to see is a bigger backlash from the legislature against gays who live in the state.

If you want to attack anyone, the targets should be those individuals and organizations from Utah who actually supported the ban, not those organizations and individuals who were appalled by their actions. The Church is going to make it's moral pronouncements. The people with the money had to decide if they were going to follow that call.

If John thinks that attacking these groups generally will somehow put pressure on the Church, he's delusional. If you put pressure on the specific people who gave the money, that might actually have an impact. Pressuring Sundance will only reward those same groups that don't want "the gay loving Hollywood types" coming to Utah.

Look, in the end, Californians did this. These people from Utah were a big part of the financial side, but it's ridiculous to punish liberal Utahns for things utterly beyond out control. This isn't like the Confederate flag in Southern states. It's not like there is any economically-concerned entity to pressure. This is more like trying to punish Georgia because of something that Bob Jones university did. It sucks, but this isn't going to do anything except make things worse for gays and gay relations in the state.

Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine this morning, but...is this some sort of joke? There are at least four major problems I see here:

1. Utah is not the LDS. The LDS is not Utah.

2. If you said after 9/11 that we should respond by disengaging from and boycotting the Islamic world, I would have called you an idiot. I would have said that engagement and understanding were needed, not economic extortion. I don't see how this case differs. Threatening people is not an effective way to change minds, especially when you lack the ability to inflict real harm. It just makes people more angry, more determined, and more confirmed in their own sense of rightousness and victimization.

3. Signalling almost never works. People boycotting Utah may think they're sending a clear message to the LDS, but there's no reason to think that the LDS will get that message. At best, they'll think "huh, tourism is down...guess the economy really sucks". Or they won't even think that because tourism isn't the LDS' job. Some random official in the Utah state house might -- and I must emphasize that it is extremely unlikely that they will -- make the connection, BUT random mid-level Utah state officials don't control the LDS.

4. Most tourism to Utah is probably non-discretionary. Utah is a place where lots of businesses and families and places of religious significance are located. People are not going to stop visiting grandma just because of some boycot, even if they voted against prop 8. Mormons the world over are not going to stop visiting Utah. Businesses are not going to stop cutting deals in Utah.

Focus on the Family has supported Prop 8 and pretty much every other anti-gay initiative over the past years. Shall we also boycott Colorado?

Not one positive response in comments yet.

I've heard some talking up bans on eBay for Meg Whitman's support.

What makes me curious is that there have been several anti gay rights propositions in the past. This one seems to have stirred up a LOT more rancor. And I wonder what's different about it. Is it the easy scapegoating? The fact that the lobby has just decided to flex its muscle? Or is it the substance of the proposition itself? Why did this cross a line that others didn't?

Ok you all have talked me out of it. You are right==boycotting Utah is not a good Idea. However I do feel that boycotting the Seattle Times is, so, deear Obwi readers of the PNW, please consider a cancellation. And let the Times know why.

I can't boycott the Times since I already am and have been for years.

Hey, why not boycott all the states that have added amendments to their constitutions to the same effect? Then, just like Turbulence said, I wouldn't be able to go visit Grandma (or her grave, anyhow), or Mom, or my siblings and nieces and nephews and great-nieces and....

Or maybe all the gay people should just never set foot outside Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont....

Nah, I second Paulk and Turb. In some ways the older I get the less patient I get about this, but then I remember how things were when I was a kid, and I think: We're getting there.

In Maine, in 1995, we had the first of half a dozen statewide referenda on gay-related issues, and the vitriol in the newspapers and on TV was appalling. For years, it seemed like almost every time I went to the polls I was asked to sign some petition or other to further specify how many rights I didn't have as a second-class citizen of this state.

This time, I was asked to sign cards in favor of same-sex marriage. It was almost ho-hum, right in there with "do you support giving money from the town budget to maintain snowmobile trails" and stuff like that.

Why did this cross a line that others didn't?

Because the Yes campaign was hugely funded by the Mormons - from out of state - and was composed almost entirely of lies ("schools will teach gay marriage" "teh gays can sue your church/pastor for not performing gay weddings" "teh gays can sue your church for denouncing homosexuality").

what Paulk and Turbulence said.

This boycott strikes me as an emotional response lashing out in anger at an easy target rather than a well thought out strategy for changing hearts and minds.

And while you’re at it, Publius, why don’t you call for a boycott all Black businesses and organizations in California, since the descendants of African American slaves voted YES 2 to 1 in favor of the proposition.

And those Blacks (and you’d certainly think they’d have a good understanding of civil rights issues) say that gay marriage isn’t a civil rights matter, and should be banned. And so we (those of us who were in favor of a YES vote) can thank the huge Obama Black turnout in California (approx 10% of the total vote) for deciding the issue in a positive fashion.

Why not just give up the idea of gay marriage instead?

4. Most tourism to Utah is probably non-discretionary. Utah is a place where lots of businesses and families and places of religious significance are located.

Utah's actual tourism industry is based around decidedly discretionary activities like skiing, rock-climbing, river rafting, and seeing national parks.

But while there are Mormons who work in tourism and own tourist industries, many of the people in that industry are actually non-Mormons, some of whom are liberal. Boycott the hell out of the Mormon Church, boycott Mormon-owned businesses, but the government of the state of Utah had nothing to do with it (unlike the government of the state of SC with the confederate flag).

On a separate note, boycotts are generally more effective if there's something the boycotted entity can do to get the boycott lifted. What could the LDS do to get this boycott lifted - fund a Prop 8 repeal campaign?

Investigating the tax-exempt status of the church, though, that is a great idea. It will actually be the second reconsideration of the tax-exempt status in the history of the Mormon church, the first being in 1978 because the LDS did not allow black people to be full members.

Why not just give up the idea of gay marriage instead?

Why didn't Martin Luther King, Jr. and the rest of the civil rights leaders of that era give up the idea of civil rights for Blacks?

What could the LDS do to get this boycott lifted - fund a Prop 8 repeal campaign?

They've had similar revelations from God.

yep - you guys win. bad idea. see new post.

and thanks for holding my feet to the fire

"They've had similar revelations from God.

Only with the US Army occupying the state, and directing them to have a 'revelation' at gun point.

Maybe a boycott should be considered for Rome and ever other country, state, city and town that has any citizen that is influenced by a religion, group or creed.

Brett: Only with the US Army occupying the state, and directing them to have a 'revelation' at gun point.

I wasn't aware that on March 6, 1978, Salt Lake City was occupied by the US Army, Brett. Can you link me to evidence of your claim that Spencer W. Kimball had this revelation at gunpoint?

You should all boycott Utah. Especially during the winter. We don't deserve your money. Know what am I going to do with all the snow to myself...

I think Mormons hate gays enough to not want gay money in their business. You should boycott everything Mormon!

Too bad most Mormons don't know that they all have at least 1 gay relative in the closet.

Too bad most Mormons don't know that they all have at least 1 gay relative in the closet.

What makes me curious is that there have been several anti gay rights propositions in the past. This one seems to have stirred up a LOT more rancor. And I wonder what's different about it.

Other measures have tended to be pre-emptive: the thing it sought to ban was already illegal in law, with the idea that it should be impossible to overturn that illegality by any means at all.

The California measure actually took existing same-sex marriage rights away. It also did so AFTER same-sex marriages had already been performed legally under California law at the time. It's still unclear whether those existing marriages will continue to exist or not.

So yeah, an actual attack on existing marriages feels a bit more personal than a pre-emptive buttressing of the status quo.

You're not going to affect the LDS Church's support for stopping gay marriage by boycotting Utah. They've been fighting against gay marriage for decades, and the only thing that affect their decisions are two things - whether or not it affects conversions (the other factor that brought on the 1978 Revision was the fact that the LDS Church wanted to expand missionary efforts in Brazil, which is difficult when you don't allow black people the full rights), and whether or not it affects their tax exempt status.

Attacking Utah, though, is only guaranteed to piss off a lot of Utahns, many of whom (particularly in Salt Lake City and the ski resorts) are liberal and supportive of gay marriage.

My guess is that they will NOT nullify previously existing established marriage. Such a move would be a clear violation of federal Constitutional law.

Boycotting Utah is a wonderful idea. We won't get our rights until we learn to fight back.

My guess is that they will NOT nullify previously existing established marriage. Such a move would be a clear violation of federal Constitutional law.

The California AG has said that he will treat existing same-sex marriages as still valid, but there are almost certain to be legal challenges to that, if they haven't been filed already.

How do we reconcile the horror at the US Army telling Utah what to do and the notion of an church based entity outside of the state pouring money to influence a plebiscite?

"However I do feel that boycotting the Seattle Times is, so, deear Obwi readers of the PNW, please consider a cancellation. And let the Times know why."

It might be nice if you first announced why. You seem to feel that that's an unnecessary bit of information.

Beyond that, I don't understand the point of a newspaper boycott for, apparently, a disagreement or criticism over a single story. That means that forever thereafter, it should be a cause to put them out of business? I don't see the logic. Can you explain, please? What, exactly, would be the purpose served by driving the Seattle Times out of business?

"Posted by: Jay Jerome | November 08, 2008 at 11:27 AM"

Congrats, Jay, btw, on your amazing predictive powers.

[...] In the general election, Dukakas 'sweeps' Hawaii and Rhode Island = Obama projection: ditto. Overall Dukakis got creamed = Obama, most likely the same.
And:
And if McCain is elected president, you can blame it on Obama, for pushing his way into the race, and fracturing what would have been a united, unstoppable Clinton landslide into a broken mess.
And:
Except that they do divorce on occasion: Reagan Democrats, Southern Democrats, etc… they've peeled off before; and I think it's likely you'll see a similar abandonment if Obama's the candidate. And not only the small town bitter demographic group Obama was referring to in San Francisco.

[...]

The consensus was that McCain-Powell is a winning team, if the Republicans are savvy enough to go for it. Hillary-Billary would have a difficult time against them too (that was a split: four to four) - but Obama would be toast.

Say, who did Powell endorse, anyway?

And whatever happened to those riots in Denver?

Overall, Jay, congrats on your terrific track record of predictions on how Obama could never win, and Democrats wouldn't support him. Spot on!

"I wasn't aware that on March 6, 1978, Salt Lake City was occupied by the US Army, Brett. Can you link me to evidence of your claim that Spencer W. Kimball had this revelation at gunpoint?"

Jay didn't claim they had that revelation at gunpoint. I think he cleary meant that he meant the revelation that polygamy wasn't God's will.

"And so we (those of us who were in favor of a YES vote) can thank the huge Obama Black turnout in California (approx 10% of the total vote) for deciding the issue in a positive fashion."

Let's not thank the "whites," who clearly were powerless, and had nothing to do with it.

Interesting thinking.

"Interesting" may not be the best word.

Why not boycott California since it was Californians who provided the most financial support for prop 8?

Boycott Utah? Why not Target Boycott Selective LDS Church owned businesses to draw attention to the fact they have their nose in the wrong place. Such as--a complete listing od those companies who lease/rent properties from the LDS church. The church owns a huge amount of commerical properties throughout the US. In UT they are building the largest retail Center in the state. Why not put companies like Nordstrom, Dillards, Old Navy, Eddie Bauer etc, who are leasing property from the LDS church they are the subject of a national boycott of their establishment? This would draw more attention to it then boycotting the entire state.

Great! Shorter lines at the ski runs for us! Oh, and can you please add Arizona to the list of states to boycott. Thanks!

Another good reason for boycotting Utah is carbon emissions. Utah gets 93% of its electricity from burning coal - the highest in the nation, much higher than China and almost as high as Poland (highest in the world)

Clean the are not.

YES please boycot Utah and while you are at it why don't you please boycot the whole country so we normal people don't have to look at you and your sore as...

"Brett: Only with the US Army occupying the state, and directing them to have a 'revelation' at gun point.
I wasn't aware that on March 6, 1978, Salt Lake City was occupied by the US Army, Brett. Can you link me to evidence of your claim that Spencer W. Kimball had this revelation at gunpoint?"

I think he has another and earlier revelation in mind. The LDS get all sorts of convenient revelations. They had one when they wanted to join the Union, back when LDS and Utah really were identical. God told them polygamy wasn't all that that central to salvation. This one may have been when God told them they really shouldn't try to secede Utah Territory from the Union. It's alright; US history is really too tedious.

Brillient idea! Lash out at an entire state where no one even voted in the election in question, just because people with beliefs you dont agree with live there. I think that is sound justification to hurt all the local small businesses, the people they employ, and their families. NOT! Lashing out in this way speaks volumes about your tolerance for people with differing viewpoints or values!

Thank you all for your comments on NOT boycotting the state of Utah. Utah is not your enemy, it is the Mormon church (and not all Mormons oppose gay marriage, for that matter).

Full disclosure, I love Utah. I spent my most of my childhood there. I have a lot of friends and family in that lovely State, so I have a big emotional connection. I feel a bit uncomfortable that many are calling for the scape-goating of an entire state for the biggotry of a section of its population.

The boycott of an entire state seems like using a hatchett when a scalpel would be the more appropriate tool, but what can we do instead...
Boycott Mormon-owned businesses if you like.
If you do go on a Utah trip, do not visit the Temple Square, Mormon Tabernacle, Brigham Young house, etc.
Please, please boycott known companies who have donated money to the pro-prop.8 campaign. Then take that money and spend it with companies who have come out in support of the anti-prop.8 campaign.
Write letters, sign potitions, march in Gay pride demonstrations and find other ways that you can support Gay rights.

This fight is far from over, and in the end, I am certain, that freedom will win.

Come to Santa Fe instead, we have skiing, museums, opera, fantastic dining, and the list goes on

Stay at my inn and cottages

http://www.casitas.net

As a long time local here in Park City (home to sundance) I am amazed that this would even be considered. Sundance is the best friend plurality of lifestyle and thought has, not only in Utah but anywhere! Support diversity, Support Sundance. While here, visit Temple Square and let them know how disappointed you are with the LDS churches stand.

It is easy, 62% of Utah mormons, those people live off the state. Punish the state punish those that attacked gay families in California. Those Mormons financed the attacks on California through jobs they have in Utah, those jobs are created by Taxes, and skiing, Sundance, etc all bring revenue for the state. These are hate driven people. They are the hight of hypocrites, anyone that knows anything about Mormons. Boycott Utah and anyone that goes there!

I wonder how many people realize that there are nearly as many members of the LDS church in California as in Utah. And for that matter, more members of the church outside the US than in. The idea of boycotting Utah to punish the LDS church is perhaps the most ignorant and ridiculous idea I've ever heard. But so is the idea of the LDS church being targeted so heavily in a matter that very well could have passed without their support to begin with.

In addition, the idea that the LDS church and/or it's members "hate" homosexuals is also a ridiculous claim. The LDS church is very pro-family, which family they believe to consist of a man and a woman which belief is in accordance with the Old and New Testiments and upheld by the majority of modern Christendom. While that may be "old fashioned" by today's standards, the LDS Church collectively as well as it's members have no harsh feelings towards homosexuals, they just don't feel a homosexual should be considered a "family".

DO NOT BOYCOTT UTAH!

Look, I am gay and live in Utah. We need you to come here not stay away. Mormons win when gays stay away! The would rather you not come - so please - come here and be out and proud.

We own businesses too and Park City and Salt Lake are gay friendly - believe it or not. It is the LDS Church that is not - so please do not punish your fellow gays!

i think if gay people want to get married there is nothing wrong with it. People are their own people. leave them alone.

Brilliant idea.I think that is sound justification to hurt all the local small businesses, the people they employ, and their families.The boycott of an entire state seems like using a hatchett when a scalpel would be the more appropriate tool, but what can we do instead.
======================
[url="http://www.addictionlink.org/drug-rehab-center/utah"]utah drug rehab[/url]

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast