August 28, 2008

California: Wall Street Journal Takes Note of Proposition 8 Boycotts

As well the WSJ should. Meanwhile, congratulations and THANK YOU to our friend Fred Karger at Californians Against Hate for the high-profile notice!

Gay Activists Target Businesses

When William Bolthouse, a California philanthropist, donated $100,000 in March to support a proposition to ban gay marriage in California, calls and emails poured in — not to Mr. Bolthouse, but to the corporate offices of a company that bears his name — even though he sold it three years earlier.

“It wasn’t us, it’s not our fault,” says Jeffrey Dunn, now the chief executive of Bolthouse Farms, whose juice bottles are sold at upscale markets such as Whole Foods.

Oh, let me call the wahhhhhmbulance for you, Jeff. As Alex Blaze (who did the initial research) summarized:

“The [Bolthouse] Foundation gets its money from William Bolthouse, and William Bolthouse’s philosophy, mission, even members of his family, still run the Company. Family members are on both sides of that aisle. The Foundation is looking out for the Company’s interests. The money that funds the Foundation originally came from the Company and may continue via other family member’s private donations that still work for the Company. They are not completely independent entities.”

The bottom line (literally) is this: Every time somebody buys a Bolthouse product, money flows to the Bolthouse Foundation, which in turn funds the anti-gay agenda.

Care to rebut that, Mr. Dunn?

Bolthouse Farms is the latest target in what has become an increasingly bitter political fight in California. As gay-rights activists attempt to defeat the upcoming ballot initiative, called Proposition 8, they are going after not just individuals, but also companies to which they are connected, however tenuously.

“Mr. Bolthouse has said, ‘I’m not connected to Bolthouse Farms at all.’ But we don’t accept that,” says Fred Karger, who runs Californians Against Hate, a new gay-rights group that is leading the charge to identify and publicize corporate connections to significant donors. He notes that Mr. Bolthouse’s son-in-law is chairman of the company and that Bolthouse Farms markets itself as a fourth-generation company.

Next week, Californians Against Hate is planning to push its tactic further by publishing a “Dishonor Roll,” a list of individual and corporate donors who give $5,000 or more to groups campaigning on behalf of Proposition 8. The list will include the donor’s name, employer and the corporate logo of that employer — even if the company itself didn’t donate to the Proposition 8 fight.

Mr. Karger said the tactic isn’t intended to keep individuals or companies from donating, but is meant to educate the public so consumers can make informed choices. He said including corporate logos of businesses whose employees donate is fair game, since that information is publicly available on government Web sites that track donors. “Our larger message is to other business people,” Mr. Karger says. “It’s a free country, you can give as much money to this campaign, but we are going to publicize that and people can make a decision on whether or not they want to support those businesses.”

Ready for the funny part? No, really, this is freaking hilarious:

Some Proposition 8 supporters see the effort as crossing a line.

But anti-gay boycotts of Disney, Ford Motor Company, and McDonald’s (to name only three) — and asking “Christians not to tip waiters at San Diego’s unionized establishments” — are perfectly acceptable in the name of Jesus, right?

Hypocrites.

Bolthouse’s Dunn also says Bolthouse Farms “has made an effort to correct wrong information on blogs that said Mr. Bolthouse still owned a large portion of the company.” If Bolthouse still owns one share of Bolthouse Farms, that’s one share too many. And if Bolthouse divested himself of all interests, I’d like to see proof that Bolthouse doesn’t benefit from the company. Does, for instance, the old man still get a nice, fat pension from Bolthouse Farms? I bet he does. And that still means that a chunk of every dollar the company makes is money being used against the rights of gay and lesbian Californians.

Anything to say to that, Mr. Dunn?

The article goes on to quote Terry Caster, owner of A-1 Storage, and Dunn as saying the effort hasn’t hurt business. Well, of course they’re going to say that — but if they weren’t worried, they wouldn’t be talking to the Wall Street Journal about it, would they?

Meanwhile, Doug Manchester is a bit more candid, admitting that the boycott of his San Diego hotels has indeed impacted business. (This bit alone is worth hitting the WSJ article for a full read.)

Still, Doug the Clueless says he’s “saddened by all the divisive nature of the movement.” Well, who made it “divisive,” Dougie? You could have just shut up, sit back, and left us alone, but noooooooo, you had to stick your nose (and your money) into an issue that never had any effect on you, your family, or your hotels. Now you’re involved, Dougie, and you (and your employees, and your vendors, and everybody else who depends on you to make a living) have no one to blame but yourself.

Also worth the full read is the idea that gay boycotters may not make the distinction between businesses run by anti-gay crusaders, and their parent corporations, which may or may not take a stand on a given issue. While Hyatt Corporation (the Hyatt name is on one of Manchester’s hotels) said it doesn’t “have a position” on Proposition 8, Hyatt has “a really strong, long track record of inclusiveness in terms of the way we welcome our guests and the way we treat our employees. Doug Manchester … in no way speaks for Hyatt.”

But:

That distinction may be harder to make as gay-rights groups offer fuller public profiles of private donors. Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com, the largest fund-raiser for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, says she expects it will become more difficult to entice corporations to contribute to her cause.

“The moment [Mr. Manchester] wrote the check, he found himself to be the target of numerous boycotts and protests,” she said. “Our side has a significant challenge in that.”

Good.

While it’s reasonable to question the fairness of punishing a parent corporation for the actions of one of its franchisees, the fact remains that there is a relationship between the two which benefits both parties. It’s regrettable that Hyatt Corp. may have to suffer for the actions of Doug Manchester, but in every war, there is always collateral damage.

We suggest that parent corporations which don’t want to be tagged as anti-gay reassess their relationships with franchisees and affiliates, and sever those relationships giving the parent a bad name.

California’s Bolthouse Farms: Proudly Promoting Radical Homophobia Since 1915
June 27, 2008

Official Gay, Labor Boycott of Doug Manchester’s Hotels; “Ex-Gay” Supporter Advises Customers to Stiff Union Workers
July 11, 2008

Digesting the News
July 21, 2008

Hey, Bolthouse! The Unions Have Our Back — And Now They’re On Yours.
July 22, 2008

Who’s Behind Prop 8: A Web Site Dedicated to Anti-Gay Hotelier Doug Manchester
July 22, 2008

Californians Against Hate Launches “Call Terry Caster Campaign”
July 29, 2008

California Proposition 8 Backer-Trackers: Bookmark This Link Now!
August 20, 2008

More in the Marriage Equality category

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Permalink | |