Since Sam Adams made it political, I think anyone else can also.

Since when has a parade (Other than the gay pride parade) been about anyone's sexual orientation?  I am so sick of this whole issue.  I am tired of hearing about it.

If Sam Adams decides because of this stupid issue to make a statement, I think it's fair game for anyone else to do it.  If that includes boycotting the brand, that's the chance they took.

DaisyJane   

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 16, 2014, 01:42:05 AM
You seem to not understand that a boycott is a punishment. So who is being punished and why? As it stands now we are supposed to punish Sam Adams and Heineken because they decided to pull out of the parade because the parade doesn't want gay people making a statement. At every step this is about association and each party should have the right to associate with whom they want. I can't make it any clearer....

Why should people continue to associate with Sam Adams, by buying their products, if they do not support their corporate values?

The boycott is an exercise of free association.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 15, 2014, 09:41:09 PM
We shouldn't be advocating a boycott. By boycotting you are punishing one entity for not associating with another.

The forced association begins and ends with Gay Inc.  With these beer co's trying to help them get away with it.

Nobody was excluded from the parade.  A simple rule was observed in which the parade folks said "don't change our St. Paddy's Day theme to ANYBODY else 's theme".  Simply, wear your St Paddy stuff and not a bunch of other crap like dog collars and assless chaps and butt plugs.  Or 101 different personal / private flags that change the theme to what some selfish little prick wants.

It's not a St. Gay Day parade, even though the gay mafia can't comprehend any rule that doesn't give them special privileges and rights to force their little sideshow on everyone, anywhere.  Forced association, with these apparently gay-centric beers giving all the help they can.

Somebody should create a beer brand that says "no gay !" On the label.  But there would be a legal tsunami.  Illegal to have that opinion........totally legal to force the gay on everybody who just wants to be left alone.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 16, 2014, 01:42:05 AM
You seem to not understand that a boycott is a punishment. So who is being punished and why? As it stands now we are supposed to punish Sam Adams and Heineken because they decided to pull out of the parade because the parade doesn't want gay people making a statement. At every step this is about association and each party should have the right to associate with whom they want. I can't make it any clearer....

If this is as clear as you can make your case against a boycott, I'm afraid I won't be able to understand your point. It seems you're making the boycotters look like the bad guys for boycotting a company that is boycotting them.

Anyway, other people have posted in here explaining my perspective so maybe their posts will make it clearer to you. I normally agree with most of your posts so this has sort of caught me off guard.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on March 15, 2014, 11:29:06 PM
Sort of how they did when boycotting the parade? And I'm assuming the entity we are boycotting is the beer company but you see this as punishment for not associating with....who exactly? And you seem to be glancing over the beer company's political motive in pulling the sponsorship. Once they make it political, why should conservatives not play politics right back? I really don't understand what you see wrong about this.

Gay people aren't allowed to be in the parade?

Quote from: taxed on March 16, 2014, 08:50:57 PM
Gay people aren't allowed to be in the parade?

Who said that?

Quote from: Dr. Meh on March 16, 2014, 09:52:58 PM
Who said that?

I have no idea.

Quote from: taxed on March 16, 2014, 10:24:39 PM
I have no idea.

They're allowed in but not allowed to turn the St. Patrick's Day parade into a gay pride parade.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 16, 2014, 01:42:05 AM
You seem to not understand that a boycott is a punishment. So who is being punished and why? As it stands now we are supposed to punish Sam Adams and Heineken because they decided to pull out of the parade because the parade doesn't want gay people making a statement. At every step this is about association and each party should have the right to associate with whom they want. I can't make it any clearer....

How about if I put it this way. They can leave their sponsorship with the parade or pull it as they intend but I for one will no longer buy from them. They are free to associate with whom ever they please and so am I for what ever reason either of us choose. Personally for me it wasn't that they support the gay community. Its because they feel they should be able to have signs promoting their sexual orientation. I think it should be about green beer shamrocks and leprechauns. They chose to make a political statement which is their right now I will exersize mine by not giving them any of my money. I'll buy from a company that is more interested in the holiday than in making a political statement.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on March 15, 2014, 09:18:54 PM
This thread is about boycotting two companies because they choose to not sponsor a parade that excludes openly gay people.

It's been thoroughly proven that no "openly gay people" are excluded.  They can be as flamingly squealingly sashayingly gay as their little bodies can accomplish.  They've only been told to leave all their gay signs and props at home, and bring their St Paddy stuff instead.  Because......um......that's what the parade is about.

Also, the beer co's are in fact boycotting the parade.  Why is their boycotting any different than a consumer boycotting them ?

Your post is very inaccurate / dishonest.

When a self-proclaimed conservative starts throwing out the classic gay buzzwords, catchphrases, and sneaky little falsehoods.....it almost always comes out that they have selfish, personal reasons.  Huntsman and Cheney come to mind.

If the perverts want unequal treatment and special recognition of their illness, let them organize a Queer St. Paddy's hike of their own. Turn it into a Folsom Street Fair event from San Fagcisco for all I care, because then it would be "their" event....and not the happy-go-lucky Irish-American drinking-fest we have come to know and at least tolerate if not love.

If a company does not wish to be seen as discriminating against such a derangement, that is their right. They are then free to sustain whatever public support (increased sales) or disapproval (decreased sales) as the buying public sees fit.

It's simple.  The gay agenda continues to push the idea that their special private "rights" trump everyone else's rights.  Constitution and "equal rights" be damned.

The cake shop and photog guys don't even have a right to decline participation in gay celebrations.

They WILL abandon their beliefs, and participate in gay celebrations.....or they will face legal punishment and destruction of their businesses.

Of course there are gay cake-makers and photographers who would love to participate and provide everything that's wanted.  But it's not about the cake and photos, in the least.  It's about making other people do things, and "proving" that their rights are better than yours.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on March 15, 2014, 09:38:16 PM
Yes, I know. That doesn't answer my question. Businesses by nature are and should be amoral. Not moral, not immoral. If a business wants to make the leap to define its morality, those opposed can and do have the right to take their business elsewhere if they do not agree on said morals. So again: what's the problem? Or are you suggesting that as conservatives we should have forced association with businesses that we morally disagree with?

A business is still a privately owned piece of private property.  Only in the recent rush to communism are businesses redefined as delivery systems for social justice, with the owners having no rights and the govt having full control of business ops.

Obama and Holder have ushered in a whole new reality of USSR-style govt ownership of all businesses and economic activity, through legal, regulatory, and taxation punishment.

With true equal, constitutional rights, businesses are even allowed pursue a racially or socially discriminating clientele.  A true free market will always discourage this, and true threats or assault will always be punished by the actual law of the land.

Freedom of speech and association are not subject to the whims of who's currently in power, or who whines and feels insulted the loudest.  These freedoms have no limits or govt controls, until you literally threaten or hurt someone, where the law steps in.

Liberals used to say "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

Today, they say "If it takes your death, I'll stop you from saying that".

Just like JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you.......".   Today they say "ask not for me to do anything......tell me what you're giving me today".

JFK would be Tea Party today, and viscerally hated by today's left.

You can add Guinness to the boycott list as well.

Guinness ditches St. Paddy's parade over LGBT ban

http://nypost.com/2014/03/16/guinness-pulls-sponsorship-from-st-pattys-parade-over-lgbt-ban/

Good for them, obviously these brands are all hoping to get a piece of Miller's title of "the gay beer".

All private companies should pursue their PR and niches as they see fit, just like this.  Just as the customers are free to be part of whatever niche and product they feel comfortable with.

It's got to be pure marketing and profits, because it's abject bullshit that anybody's being excluded and needs "help".

I swear, it would be so great for a start-up beer to put "no homo" and a big green shamrock on their label. But you know Obama & Holder would jump so far up their asses with raids and impounds.