Poll: Plurality now think businesses that provide wedding services should be required to serve gay weddings too

posted at 8:41 pm on September 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

I wish Pew had provided older numbers to use as a yardstick here. Can’t tell if this has been fairly constant for a few years now or if opinion is starting to move towards gays on public accommodations as well.

The fact that more people support compulsion in the name of antidiscrimination than the right of the business owner to refuse for reasons of conscience is newsy, though.


Say, wasn’t there another splashy poll by a famous pollster on this subject last year? Yep, sure was — Rasmussen asked a similar question in June 2013 and found, no typo, that 85 percent of Americans supported the business owner’s right to refuse. Either there’s been a sea change among the public over the past 15 months or, much more likely, the starkly different results are a product of how the two questions were phrased. Compare Pew’s question above to how Ras put it:

Suppose a Christian wedding photographer has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. If asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, should that wedding photographer have the right to say no?

Not only did they mention that this matter is one of “deeply held” religious beliefs for business owners, which may have increased support vis-a-vis Pew’s blander phrase “for religious reasons,” but Rasmussen built up to that question by asking several other questions related to freedom of association and the right of groups to exclude. The question quoted above was actually the sixth in a sequence of seven; number five, for example, was “Should a gay and lesbian organization on campus be allowed to require that all officers of the club support equal rights for gays and lesbians?” If you say yes to question five, you’re primed to say yes to question six as well for reasons of consistency. That’s a smart tactic for supporters of business owners. State antidiscrimination laws don’t punish discrimination against all groups, only those that are especially vulnerable in the eyes of the state, but emphasizing that all sorts of entities are routinely entitled to exclude those who don’t share their beliefs is a shrewd way to steer people around towards the right to exclude for moral reasons in operating one’s business too.

As for the various subsamples above, the gender gap is noteworthy (if not enormous), as is the racial split. Blacks are sensitive to giving businesses the right to deny service to a disfavored group (at least vis-a-vis marriage), for obvious historical reasons. Hispanic numbers are almost as lopsided as those for blacks. The age split is dramatic, suggesting that as millennials replace elderly voters in the population, public support for requiring businesses to serve gay weddings will solidify decisively. The tilt among Catholics is interesting too, driven partly by the number of Hispanic Catholics but not entirely. Even white Catholics show majority support for forcing business owners to comply.

The very last bit, showing how opinion on this subject correlates with opinion on whether homosexuality is sinful, is more nuanced than you might think:


The public is more convinced today than it was last year that homosexuality is sinful, although support for legalizing gay marriage hasn’t really fallen off. Last year it was 50/43, today it’s 49/41 — although in February of this year, it reached as high as 54 percent. Hmmmm. Was February an outlier or has public support started to cool a bit? Also, although I already knew that Catholics on balance favored legalizing gay marriage (52/35 in this poll), I’m surprised to see that a plurality of them don’t consider homosexuality sinful. Forgive the atheist a possibly stupid question, but isn’t all sexual activity outside marriage regarded as sinful by the church? I can see how Catholics might support legalizing SSM as a matter of civil law so long as the Church isn’t forced to recognize those unions but I’m not sure how gay relations don’t qualify as sinful. Any religious readers want to help me out here?

Exit question: 82 percent of white evangelical Protestants, i.e. the conservative base, see homosexuality as sinful while 56 percent of Hispanic Catholics see it as not a sin. Are we still sticking to the argument that Hispanics are “natural conservative voters” who simply haven’t seen the light yet that the GOP is their natural home?

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

I am absolutely for gay marriage. I’m glad this is a non-issue here in Massachusetts. However, I’m completely opposed to forcing people to serve gay weddings. This is a complicated issue though. How about a gay couple at a restaurant? Can the restaurant refuse to do that? I guess in the libertarian world they should have a right to refuse. What about black people?

I don’t think anyone is prepared to go all the way in either direction, so it’ll be about drawing lines somewhere.

PBH on September 24, 2014 at 9:49 AM

in other words you know you’ve lost the argument, which is true. But rather admit you were wrong you want to sulk and not change your views at all.

Which is exactly why you’re a bigot in the first place.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Claiming that others have lost the argument is usually the first sign of a lost argument itself.

If you’re winning the argument, it’s self evident. An adult doesn’t need to point such things out.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Health insurance received from an employer is a compensation in return for labor. Hobby lobby said employers can dictate exactly what benefits you may and may not receive from your insurance, even if the insurance is willing to give them to you. The employer can veto your ability to receive the benefits of YOUR compensation if they don;t like how it was spent. It is exactly the same thing as an employer telling you what you can spend your salary on.

And you cheered this on.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 2:35 PM

This statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world works. You can thank your teachers and professors for that.

Hobby Lobby did not dictate anything. Hobby Lobby simply refuses to pay for benefits that violates their religious beleifs. This has been the law of the land since its inception, until the dippy hippies from the flatulent 1960s came of age and assimilated government.

For now, the employee is still free to take their earnings and purchase any goods and/or services that they like with it. Nothing is stoppin them other than their own laziness and/or immaturity.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM

I’d much rather simply move to a single payer system and get rid of the parasite insurance companies all together.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 2:37 PM

But you’re the parasite.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Yeah, who could possibly go bankrupt by making it hard for customers to buy your services?

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 2:39 PM

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM

Not letting you discriminate does not = stomping on you, no matter how many Fox War on Christmas special reports you’ve seen.

What’s actually happening is people have decided to stop you stomping on gays (including literally), and you are pissed off about it, just like any brat forced to behave.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Who is literally stomping on gays? Is there a YouTube video you can point to?

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 10:05 AM

The feds we elect and have a direct say in their employment as opposed to an insurance company CEO set for life whether you live or die, and in fact profits if you die?

yeah, great idea…

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I’m not sure if this qualifies as an actual sentence.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 10:06 AM

While we are at it lets make it manditory they serve weddings when you marry your dog or your horse.

logicman_1998 on September 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM

A very small amount become more profitable doing so. It is much more common that companies need to expand their client base, which is why advertising is a half trillion dollar a year business, while “we drive your customers away” is not exactly a big business.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 2:58 PM

Where are you getting this information from?

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Yes I take the system proven to work. I guess I’m just weird that way.

Why do you insist on cleaving to the system proven to fail?

Just think about it logically- a for profit insurance business makes money by taking premiums and denying care whenever possible. They have every financial incentive in the world to screw you over. And when you really need them all they have to do is bide for time and your illness will kill you off. Th incentive structure is perverse, anti-human, and deeply immoral.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 3:02 PM

As indicated earlier, you’re ineducable.

Why not move to the socialist nation of choice where the policies you support are already in place?

Wouldn’t you be happier living in some Cuban village?

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM

The website rolled out badly, not it’s up and working fine. So your point is…

It’s also worth remembering that it was only due to the shocking intransigence on the part of state republicans that necessitated a federal site in the first place. Maybe Obama should have predicted the right would act like children when America chose to go his way but he apparently gave you guys way too much credit and paid the price.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM

What are you talking about?

Not one single Republican voted for ObamaCare, and not one single Republican’s input was sought for ObamaCare.

This is the Collective’s baby, entirely.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Right, because you have a god given right to attack gays any way you want. And protecting them from people like you is fascism. Of course. Similarly if a few of your friends want to wear white hoods and roadhaul some blacks, hey it’d be wrong of me to sto(m)p you. At the same time though those uppity black panthers are a problem, right?

The purely imaginary scenarios you like to concoct seemingly have no end.

Who is attacking gays and how?

Who’s wearing white hoods exactly?

Because of course rights only belong to straight white males who own land.

You cut your gripe list short. Let me help your tolerance out here:

It should read, “straight sexist misogynist racist patriarchal homophobic homogeneous hegemonic nativist tea-bagging redneck hillbilly white male Christian Republican bourgeoisie capitalist colonialist imperialists.”

Feel free to copy and paste.

Huh, I think I see why it is you are a fan of the founding fathers, you share a lot in common. Your views also belong in the 18th century.

That may be true, but your views are positiviely medieval.

So we’re one up on you,.

That you apparently feel no shame in defending this filth is really disturbing.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Not as dusturbing as worshiping a paper mache tiki god in the streets of New York without at least serving some polynesian SPAM cuisine.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 10:40 AM

I think Tlaloc studied under the same tutelage as Jay Carney.

Tlaloc, what do you want on YOUR cake?


woodcdi on September 24, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Really? What was the last insurance company you heard of to have a good brand?

Northwestern Mutual

The last phone company?


Cable company?

Who still subscribes to cable?


Midwest Express

Yes, you were taught the adam smith tripe, I get that. Now stop and look how your econ 101 theory actually works in the real world.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 3:30 PM

The problem is that econ 101 theory is the antithesis of the real world.

Remember, your professors, and the textbooks they write, embrace a world view that was originated in the piss holes of Woodstock back in the flatulent 1960s through the haze of LSD and other mind altering substances.

So attending college is actually de-educational. You actually end up more stupid coming out of it. And flat broke.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Poor Tlaloc..his community college poly-sci part-time lecturer has failed him big time. Absolutely, farking clueless. LOL.

HumpBot Salvation on September 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM

It doesn’t work that way because people have to have health insurance, all the companies behave the same, and employers are generally the ones buying the insurance because of our system which stupidly links insurance to employment.

You can’t rely on free markets to allow for choice when you have hostage customers, no real differences in choice, and the choices are made by people who just don’t care.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 3:33 PM

What are you talking about?

I survived most of my adult life without health insurance.

In the 200,000 years that homo sapiens have roamed the Earth, only 200 of those years have been lived with the existence of insurance.

The Greatest Generation fought Nazi fascism and took us to the Moon. And what’s your legacy?

Wringing your hands over health insurance and social security.


Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Your solution is to remove the safety guards on an industry proven to be actively malicious. You want to free up the worst actors to follow their every sociopathic whim.

I want to put the sociopaths out of business entirely.

Again- my system- proven to work the world over. Yours? Not so much. At best you can try to argue it hasn’t been tried.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Why go through all the effort?

Again, why not just move to the socialist nation of your choice where the policies you support are already in place, and enjoy?

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Really? You’re going to argue that?

Unless you sit on the board of a company the CEO is completely untouchable to you. On the other hand every government agency is ultimately responsible to the voters through the (I had thought) well understood principle of representative democracy.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Well that certainly explains the IRS targeting.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 11:17 AM

I used to do materials science for both industry and academics. Now I’m doing computer science. My job doesn’t involve killing people for money. I like that.

Yes the best systems in the world use my preference. Please tell me you don’t still buy all that crap about the US being better despite us having at best middling results and by far the biggest cost.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Remember Tlaloc, your perspective is based on a willfully distorted view of reality, as you and I together have revealed repeatedly now. After all, you’re citing purely imaginary facts that have no real basis in fact, hence the lack of linked back up information.

But why not just move to where the best systems in the world are? Why wait?

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 11:20 AM

Then why is it you guys are the ones devolving to ad hominem?

Actually that seems to completely undercut your argument…

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 3:54 PM


Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Well at least you managed to combine poisoning the well with ad hominem. Two fallacies for the price of 1!

It’s just amazing how you consistently accuse others of behavior that you yourself engage in, even in this very thread. Hyprocrisy truly is the foundation of all leftist “thought.”

Boycotts do nothing to affect the CEO unless the board turns on him. And even then you are talking about a multimillion dollar golden parachute and he gets replaced by somebody new doing the exact same thing.

Lt me turn it around on you- with the hugely long history of insurance company, and your claim of easy ability to control the companies, why is it the abuse continues? Seems like you’ve painted yourself in a nice little corner.

Enjoy watching it dry.

Boycotts do nothing because they people typically engagin in the boycott are the very same people who never purchase the products/services anyway.

You’ve been listening to the right wing echo chamber way too long. It’s vastly easier to get a government worker fired than a CEO, unless you happen to be a major shareholder.

in fact the washington post lists your idea as one of five myths about federal workers to be corrected here

I’m always amused when a drone from the Collective babbles about a wright wing echo chamber. Hilarious!

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Let m stop you at your first lie. When you defend supposed rights of bigots to deny gays public service, support their attempts to shame gays back into the closet, and attack legal remedies to help gays get equal treatment under the law- you are attacking gays.

Okay. I think we can see the disconnect between your understanding and reality here.

The bakery is not a public service. It is not being funded with public tax dollars. Rather, it is a private business. As such, it has the right to refuse service to anyone, and ought to.

Now, I don’t think it’s wise to turn away any customer in the Obama economy, gay or not. So it’s not something I myself would do. But the business certainly does and should have that right, activist wacko judges notwithstanding.

At least admit your homophobia. It’s obvious, so it’s not like you lose anything except the hypocrisy of being anti-gay while pretending (badly)not to be.

This is where you stupidly lecture thinking people about ad hominem attacks.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM

I’m sure you think that. And you can continue to think that even as the rest of the country repudiates your backwards views. You’ll pay a social price of course. But I’m sure you can find other bigots with which to curse the arc of history.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:15 PM


It’s important for you to understand, that you and your kind are that element of societal degradation that we read about, which brings about the end of great civilizations through their own ignorance, decadence, and selfish depravity.

And that’s the repudiation of which you speak; the barbarism of progressivity retaking the civilized world and returning it to the medieval Dark Ages, where the individual lives only in service of the state.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Actually I did check the methodology, seemed reasonable. It’s also consistent with all the other scholaly work on he subject.

…but of course you know why all them scientist types is wrong and you’re right.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Which of course is the very thing that makes it mostly nonsense, considering that modern day scientists are more concerned with pushing a half a century old LSD inspired agenda from the flatluent 1960s, rather than actual science, as the psuedoscientific climate cult clearly illustrates.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 12:35 PM

You’re apparently fine with paying twice as much for at best the same service, doesn’t that make you a lousy capitalist?

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:28 PM

There’s a reason that Cuban immigrants brave shark infested waters on pallets and intertubes to get to America, and it’s not because they’re trying to escape affordable utopian healthcare.

Remember, socialized medicine is one of the many things that generastions of immigrants come to America to escape from.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Your terminology, and the fact you think you can hide “I hate gays” as a business focus. Seems an awful lot like all those useless business consultants I saw when working for semiconductor companies.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:29 PM

This of course is the kind of economic ignorance that led to the destruction of Detroit; The Crown Jewel of Leftist Socio-Economic Policy Unfettered.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM

You haven’t embarrassed me at all in this thread blink, but like so much I’ve explained to you, I don’t expect you to understand that.

Look you want to argue that the US has the best health care in the world, take it up with these guys:

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:35 PM


But regardless, why then didn’t the Canadian Premiere fly to one of those other 36 nations instead? I mean, he’s got Utopian healthcare right in h is own back yard, right?

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM

or these guys:

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:35 PM

or this girl:

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:36 PM


The problem here is that you’re treating studies as religious dogma, which indicates a misunderstanding of what science actually is.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Thank you for proving my point about conservatives calling anything they don’t like (or don’t understand) “communism.”

How did he do that?

I understand you like the indentured servitude argument, the problem is it falls apart on even the most cursory examination. Nobody is forced to be a cake baker. If they voluntarily choose to be a baker then they are precluded from discriminating against clients on basis of race and sexual orientation.

You are purely defending the right to be a bigot (all while claiming not to be one). I’m afraid your fantasy of being the good guy here is not going to pan out.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Whether or not someone is forced to be a cake baker is 100% irrelevant to the conversation.

By your incorrect standards, a gay cake baker is and ought to be forced to service a bigoted homophobic fundamentalist wedding against their own conscience. Do you agree with this assessment?

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:28 PM

I like correcting you. It’s fun. Not particularly challenging, but fun in a mean spirited way.

But you’re the only one here demonstrating a consistent need to be corrected with nearly every post.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Yet another fallacy of the echo chamber you swallowed hook line and sinker. Not surprising but I do have to wonder if you will discover the world of facts outside of your bubble?

I’m going to hazard a guess that you’ve never heard of the publicly funded rubber rooms that universites maintain?

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Uh huh. Of course nothing I said was anywhere close to communism. At best you could fairly say I want to socialize the insurance industry. Oh wait you don;t understand the difference between communism and socialism either…

Don’t fool yourself kid, they’re merely different phases of the same operation.

But if they CHOOSE to be bakers they don;t get to enact their petty vendettas against gays by saying “no shirt, no shoes, not straight no service.”

Are you really telling me you actually thought someone was forcing people to be bakers? Really?

this of course is a deeply stupid argument. Whether or not someone is being forced to be a baker has nothing to do with anything.

The real issue here, is whether or not government has the right to enforce associations on unwilling people.

Besides, why on Earth would a gay couple want to support a business that is liklely doing creative things with their frosting?

Wouldn’t they rather support a business that supports their lifestyle?

For instance a gay cake baker, who might refuse service to a fundamentalist wedding…

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:41 PM

You haven’t shown yourself to really have mastered english, so yeah I need you to explain exactly what you think it means.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:52 PM

This coming from a person whose own sentence structure is quite dubious?

I think we need another hilarious ad hominem lecture here.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Hell most days my gang and I cruise the streets looking to press random people into gay baking vocations! Home invasions to press gang people into cake baking are on the rise, the FBI just won’t tell you the TRUTH!!1!

Do you ever stop and listen to yourself? Or is the problem that you only listen to yourself?

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:57 PM

The problem is that your argument about anyone being force to be a baker is based on pure irrationality. You’re making up short sighted cultural conventions and moral standards that don’t exist except in the minds of those who embrace an LSD inspired ideology.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:44 PM

What if a Christian opens up a Orthodox Christian Bakery that specializes in only Orthodox Christian Weddings and Cakes?

MCGIRV on September 24, 2014 at 1:45 PM

When the baker discovered the being a baker actually meant, you know, baking, they could have quit on the spot. If they wait until they actually violate the laws to do so, in other words if they just hoped not to get caught, then I don’t have much sympathy for them.

You do of course because…actually I can’t imagine how you justify backing these bigots against people who just want to buy a cake.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Typically in a free market, in a civilized society, this was handled by taking your money and your business elsewhere.

Only in the age of foot stomping adult adolesence do man-children erroneously feel they have a right to get anything they want from anyone. I thought this misbehavior would die with the boomer hippies. I was wrong.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Welcome to the post 1964 era. Bigots no longer get to control the access minorities have to food. Enjoy your stay.

Tlaloc on September 24, 2014 at 12:15 AM

This is such a bizarre emotionally unhinged statement.

What part of reality does this pertain to in the modern day?

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:49 PM

So to avoid violating a civil rights law you;d violate health code? Genius. There’s no possible way that’d blow up in your face.

Tlaloc on September 24, 2014 at 12:32 AM

Whether it blows up in their face or not, won’t prevent them from swallowing some extra protein, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Actually a number of places (but by no means all) trying to enforce such rules have found they don’t in fact have any such authority.

Tlaloc on September 24, 2014 at 12:14 AM

So much for clubs requiring a jacket I guess.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:50 PM

The only question is how long people like it will be before people like you are ashamed to admit publicly that they were on the wrong side of history.

…I’ll get the stop watch.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 5:02 PM

There’s actually another question.

How long it will take me to role my eyes and shrug my shoulders at yet another drone parroting the catchphrase about being on the “wrong side of history.”

As if that’s ever bothered the Collective.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Poll: Plurality now think businesses that provide wedding services should be required to serve gay weddings too enslaved and forced to serve PC masters

(Corrected headline)

landlines on September 24, 2014 at 2:33 PM

So, whatever happened to private property rights?

If a non-white (full disclosure : I myself am not white. Well, half-white, but if it doesn’t count for Barack the Sun King, it most not for me either…) or non-straight shows up at my house with a $10 bill and says “Sell me your car for this $10, right now!”, does that make me a bigot for refusing? Especially if my car isn’t for sale in the first place?

Should they be allowed to sue me for possession of my car?

According to the Left, they should be.

HikaruKitsune on September 24, 2014 at 3:11 PM

So, whatever happened to private property rights?

Leftists don’t believe in property rights for others.

They only believe in property rights for property that they themselves own.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Remember that most boycotts are not organized boycotts. In other words, it’s a boycott anytime people refuse to continue to buy a product or service that they’ve become dissatisfied with. Many CEOs have lost their jobs because of this – even recently.

I never got to make this point because Tialoc doesn’t understand the real meaning of bankruptcy. He obviously thinks that all bankruptcy is Chapter 7. Many CEOs lose their jobs when their companies are sold to a white knight type buyer – after consumers exercise an unorganized boycott. This has nothing to do with bankruptcy.

blink on September 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I’m sure that boycotts can have an effect if they’re highly organized. But I think that’s fairly rare.

Think of Rush Limbaugh’s audience. There’s a portion of it that would like to boycott his advertisers. But percentage of that portion would you say actually purchases his advertiser’s goods and services?

It’s like the vegan who boycotts Burger King.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 4:01 PM

It’s a boycott anytime people refuse to continue to buy a product or service that they’ve become dissatisfied with. For example, Blockbuster. There was no organized boycott of Blockbuster, but millions of people stopped using their service because of late fees. Millions switched to Netflix and other options. Eventually, the CEO lost his job because of this boycott. That’s my point, and I can come up with dozens of examples.

blink on September 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but that seems to me to be a mighty expansive definition of a boycott.

By that definition, everyone who chose to purchase automobiles rather than a horse and buggy took part in a boycott. Everyone who chooses to buy an iPad rather than a Walkman is engaging in a boycott. I’m not sure if that’s what people generally mean when they refer to a boycott.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 6:20 PM

I wonder if those people who agree that wedding services should be required also agree on forcing wedding business to cater to polygamists, serial cheaters, or incestual couples. Somehow, I think many of them would say no.

DevilishSoda on September 24, 2014 at 6:28 PM

that seems to me to be a mighty expansive definition of a boycott.

Star Bird on September 24, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Nah. People have begun confusing the word boycott with an organized boycott over the years. Here’s webster’s primary definition:

: to refuse to buy, use, or participate in (something) as a way of protesting : to stop using the goods or services of (a company, country, etc.) until changes are made

By that definition, everyone who chose to purchase automobiles rather than a horse and buggy took part in a boycott.

Except that in that situation, people choose a different product that they liked better. They weren’t refusing to buy a product as a form of protest. That’s why I used the Blockbuster late fees as an example.

I’m not sure if that’s what people generally mean when they refer to a boycott.

Well, I was the one that used the term on here to describe the power consumers have over the CEO of a company. Idiot boy asked me to name one example of a boycott that led to bankruptcy. His question was bad on two different levels, so I never really did get to an answer. I was going to teach him about the primary definition of boycott and teach him that bankruptcy isn’t the same as a company ceasing operations.

corkie on September 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM

I’d much rather simply move to a single payer system and get rid of the parasite insurance companies all together.

Tlaloc on September 23, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Entities who produce less than they use are “parasites.” That ain’t the insurance companies.
Government mandated, managed, and administered ‘medical services’ can never accomplish/produce/achieve anything even as good as (never mind ‘better than’) private medical services, and privately owned and managed insurance companies to provide financial coverage to pay for those private medical services.

listens2glenn on September 25, 2014 at 5:49 AM

Oh goody!!!

This means I’ll soon expect to be served a ham and cheese sandwich in my favorite kosher or halal restaurant???

What a bunch of maroons…low information voters all of them.

How about stopping in an Irish bar in Boston and asking the house band to do a rousing chorus of “God Save the Queen”???

patch on September 25, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Glad to see the majority of Catholics are coming around to accepting gay marriage. As far as right to refuse service, where do we draw the line? Gays? Muslims? Blacks? Can we have a society where the service industry can refuse to serve those who are of age and have the means to pay? On the other side, why would someone want to give their money to establishments that disapprove of them?

fishstick on September 25, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Reposting :

Where in the Constitution do the framers identify the ‘source’ of where they believed our rights come from?

How did the framers of the Constitution identify, and define which actions and behaviors individual people have a “right” to purport, and which actions and behaviors individual people do NOT have a “right” to purport?

listens2glenn on September 23, 2014 at 5:39 PM

listens2glenn on September 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM

I as a Christian , would rather lose my business than condone a gay anything!!! I believe someday we all we stand before the Lord and give account… And Pew is nothing but an old liberal organization who I never believe …

Bullhead on September 25, 2014 at 10:49 PM

Did they poll fewer than 200,000,000? Meaningless crap.
“National opinion” polls = bullshit.

S. D. on September 27, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5