PROPOSITION 8 BACKLASH:
WHAT'S WRONG WITH DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST THOSE WHO WANT
TO DISCRIMINATE?
After reading an article in the Los Angeles Times
today about whether there should be "boycotts, blacklists, firing or de
facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8," it didn't take
more than a moment for me to come up with a response: Why the hell not?
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this issue, as no one I've
heard or read has called for rounding the bastards up and putting them
in concentration camps, or doing them physical harm or taking away
their civil rights. Most of the outrage I've witnessed deals with not
wanting to associate on a professional level with people who promote a
political objective to interfere with a person's right to have the same
joy in their lives that the majority of Americans have.
Most occupational situations are at will, which means that, barring
a violation of no-nos prohibited by government statute, many of us can
be fired just like that. It can be a simple fact that the boss doesn't
like us or finds our work habits, even when successful, not to his
liking.
Why then should it surprise us that when people publicly support a
statute limiting the rights of a fellow human being, some of those
human beings and their supporters might rise up and say, "Well, we
can't stop you from voting the way you have, but we're sure not going
to make it profitable for you or desire your presence in our work
premises anymore."
We liberals tend to bend over backwards to appear fair and say,
"Well, is this stance any different than a boycott of companies that
promote gay rights?" This is an apples and oranges point of view,
because in the case just stated it is a stance taken by people who want
to perpetuate inequality and discrimination. These people are intruding
in the lives of others -- people who have no effect at all on the hate
mongers, except a presumed disturbance of the bigoted lifestyle they
want to maintain.
On the other hand, those who rise up against the forces who want to
impose their religious and so-called moral beliefs on the public at
large and thus prevent loving couples from legally sanctifying their
union, are in effect mimicking Paddy Chayefsky's famous words from Network: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."
They're not throwing stones at the contributors' cars or burning
their houses and certainly shouldn't be. However, taking a stand
against those who discriminate is moral, legitimate and the correct
stance to take. Just as the blacks boycotted the Montgomery, Alabama
city buses when they were only permitted to ride in the rear sections.
This is not just a question of not liking a person's politics.
Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, most of the issues in
disagreement involve economics or our foreign policy. And although I
admit to being disappointed when one of my favorites doesn't hew to my
political philosophy, I can get over it if I can respect him or her as
a decent citizen of our planet.
But when hate or smugness affects our neighbor's quality of life and
places him or her on a pedestal below, it deprives that person of the
chance to be happy and fulfilled. It bespeaks a policy that says "I'm
better than you are, and since I have the votes I'm going to prove it
with the force of law."
People with that attitude should be punished in a manner that
they'll well understand. They must suffer, not with physical torture or
incarceration, but with economic retribution, which is the most
civilized and fairly meted out solution. Why should those whom they
have hurt help them prosper and why should those who are equally
offended do likewise? Let these prejudiced souls work and interact with
those whose views share their desires to hurt others. If this is
blacklisting of a sort then it's of a stripe I can support, as I have
little use for those who interfere with the well-being and happiness of
their fellow men and women.
Contact Us