Boycott Hypocrisy (and the localized impact of Citizen's United)

So Bridge Creek, my restaurant, is being boycotted.  My previous posts (here and here) chronicle the details of why some people have decided to stay away from my restaurant.  Boycotts seem to be all over the place and I have a confession to make, I’m a boycotter too.

A couple years ago, the story came out that Target (the MN-based company and the place where our family provisions itself regularly) had made a $150,000 political contribution to Tom Emmer, a MN gubernatorial candidate.  At the time, Emmer’s campaign was very supportive of a “definition of marriage” amendment to the state’s constitution and those of us who disagreed with this position were encouraged to boycott Target as a way to send the message that the retailer shouldn’t be supporting a candidate with these social views.

There was considerable mainstream and social media attention given to the boycott at the time and as a family, we joined the boycott.  It was hard on us, probably harder on us than it was on them.  Target really was our favorite place to buy underwear, toilet paper, groceries, toothpaste and just about everything the family uses on a daily basis.  After a few months Target made some very public contributions to “GLBT friendly” causes and we decided it was ok to start buying stuff from the khaki and red clad staff at Target again.

Here’s the thing, Target most likely gave Tom Emmer’s campaign $150,000 not because of his stand on gay marriage but because he supported business and tax policy initiatives that were beneficial to their primary enterprise.  Yet us boycotters weren’t swayed.  If we spent money at Target and they in turn gave some of that money to Tom Emmer and he was elected and then helped to pass a marriage definition amendment, was it not our money fueling this whole misguided process?

Emmer didn’t win, the populace voted down the marriage amendment and eventually the state voted to create marriage equality.  Target’s $150K, sourced from our shopping dollars, was wasted.

So what’s different about the 3-person boycott of Bridge Creek and the thousands strong boycott of Target?  Neither boycott is primarily about the core activities of the enterprises, our products, or our employment practices.  Both boycotts are the result of people not wanting to see their money benefitting people they disagree with on matters of human sexuality and equality.

Target was able to make their contribution to the Emmer campaign because of the restrictions that were erased in the US Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision.  Limiting campaign contributions is experienced as a limiting of free speech.  It was argued that Target has as much right to free speech as any individual.  This understanding of corporate personhood is extremely troubling to me.  

Obviously I value my free speech.  (Though the grammar police may come after me, I’m not concerned that this blog post will actually send me to jail for example.)  It’s fundamental to my core beliefs on human worth that any group of commonly aligned individuals must value the voice of each of those individuals.  There are too many examples of those in power maintaining their dominance by quieting the voice of those they’re supposed to serve.  And that’s just a snapshot from yesterday’s news cycle.

Somebody or somebodies at Target decided to financially back a candidate that held views I don’t agree with.  The act of choosing to spend my money elsewhere and joining with a bunch of other folks doing the same was one way to lash out at the Ms. or Mr. Target that made that political contribution.  Citizens United has made them a person, apparently just like me.

But Target isn’t just like me.  They’re a large corporation with very different motivations.  I could make the argument that engaging in the political process is in fact one of Target’s core activities.  It’s how big business is done and Target’s ability to be effective at this is of primary concern to its shareholders.  And shareholder’s concerns tend to be pretty bottom line oriented.

You could certainly make the argument that Bridge Creek should be more bottom line oriented too.   But then Peter, the person, gets in the way.  If I sensed, for even a moment, that my personal views about marriage equality would have a noticeably negative effect on Bridge Creek’s bottom line, it wouldn’t change my mind about marriage equality, it would change my mind about staying connected to Bridge Creek.

For reasons previously posted about, I’m not yet worried that this 3-person strong boycott is going to have a negative effect on Bridge Creek’s bottom line.  In fact there has been more than enough positive publicity attached to these blog posts that we might even experience a bit of a bump in business.  So I guess I won’t be looking for a new place to work anytime real soon.

The Boycott Grows

If you’ve read my previous post then you already know that my restaurant is experiencing a boycott.  Initially, it was only a boycott of two but hey, these movements have to start somewhere.  Two people have informed me that they’ll no longer be dining at Bridge Creek because they disagree with me, the owner and operator of their “favorite restaurant,” at least until now.  And now the boycott has grown to three.  A movement is born.

“This reaffirms why I never liked your restaurant! Since day one I have never appreciated what you brought to town. Thanks for making your private business public so I know where you stand.  To bad you didn't stay wherever you came from In the first place.” 

– Anonymous reply to my earlier blog post (subsequently deleted by its author).

What’s the source of this movement’s disagreement?  Do they not like our decision to feature only Montana-brewed beers on tap?  Are they disappointed that we serve trout from Idaho-based fisheries?  Perhaps it’s because we’ve never once featured a Cabernet Sauvignon from the hill country of Texas.  Maybe they don’t like how we force our staff to NOT work on Thanksgiving or Christmas.

Actually, the reason these folks have decided not to “give their money” to me is because I personally support marriage equality.  Turns out, this boycott has nothing to do with our food, our wine or our staff.  It has to do with me.  And this probably came about because I recently had the privilege of cheering on two of my best friends as they finally had the right to walk into our county courthouse and apply for a marriage license.  The local newspaper was there too and I was quoted as saying a few things about how wonderful I believe this all is.

As a business owner I’ve always tried to keep Bridge Creek shielded from political and religious speech.  Bridge Creek is apolitical.  Bridge Creek has never endorsed a candidate let alone made a financial contribution to a campaign.  We’ve never extended a discounted use of our facilities to a political or religious organization that we wouldn’t also extend to organizations with differing or opposing views.  Generally, we’ll do business with anyone.  I just think that’s good business.

When I’m at Bridge Creek, interacting with customers and staff, I generally avoid getting into political or religious conversations.  When I do, I really try to model a willingness to remain open to ideas and not discount other opinions or views.  When I’m away from Bridge Creek and you ask me what I think, I will tell you.  I’ll even debate with you if you want.  I’ll go to rallies and volunteer at phone banks.  And yes, I’ll even (very, very rarely) write checks to support candidates or issues that I care deeply about.

I’m not surprised that some people will struggle to separate Peter from Bridge Creek or Bridge Creek from Peter.  In so many ways, we are the same.  My presence is woven in and throughout this entire enterprise.  Though at any given time there are anywhere from 25 to 50 fantastically talented and dedicated staff people delivering world class hospitality to our guests, it’s unavoidable that I’m the person most identified with this operation.

So it seems pretty natural that if you’re going to lash out at Peter Christ for holding a political or religious view that differs from your own, it’s pretty easy to lash out at Bridge Creek.  Probably much easier than coming at me directly (the anonymous poster above is clearly wanting to limit the scope of their confrontation).  But just because it’s easy, does it make sense?

It’s the disconnect between what Bridge Creek is about (serving great food and wine, providing authentic hospitality, etc.) and what Peter Christ is about (being a father & husband, following Jesus, supporting marriage equality, etc.) that suggests to me that boycotting Bridge Creek doesn’t really make the statement that the boycotters are hoping to make.

Then again, I think I’m guilty of the same misguided endeavor.  But that story is for the next post.

The Boycott is ON!

A few weeks ago, I received the following email:

PLEASE remove us from you7 e-list as we do not plan to ever eat there again. We do NOT agree with your stand on gay marriage and will NOT support your establishment again Sorry as you were are favorite place to eat in RL

My first reaction was fairly joyful.  Knowing these particular folks and how much I dislike their political and religious views, I was happy to learn that they wouldn't be coming into my restaurant anymore.  Not that they were all that regular to begin with.  I'm guessing we maybe saw them once or twice a year, but that's probably a stretch.  But each time they came in, my stomach would get tight and I had to swallow my true feelings of them in order to follow through on my overriding desire and responsibility to be hospitable, after all that's the business I'm in.  Needless to say, I never once confronted them about how much I disagreed with their views on so many topics.  Perhaps I should have.

My mind started racing with all the things I could say in response.  I shared my ideas with my wife knowing that it was probably wise not to fire off a quick response.  Ultimately, I considered that no response was probably the smart play.  But no response also meant little to no satisfaction.

Then again a few days ago, I received another email:

We can no longer support your place so please remove us from you ex. group and e-mails. Having felt you were the best place in town to eat this dose make us sad to say the least. However we can NOT give our money to those that approve in supporting gay marriages which is against the LAW of God. Try reading I Cor. 6:8 and following, Rom 1, Lev.11:22 and 18: 22 & 23. We are very sorry about this but we feel VERY strongly about this so will be eating elsewhere.

Clearly, they were expecting a response.  Here was my reply:

I’ve been wrestling with whether or not to respond to you and what would be an appropriate way to counter your claim as to why you’re choosing to discontinue dining at Bridge Creek.  I’ve actually had more than a bit of fun coming up with a whole host of clever comebacks.  These witticisms were grounded in the wide range of emotions that your declaration brought out of me: sadness, joy, anger and frustration, to name but a few.  Ultimately I came to realize that sharing any of them with you would have accomplished little beyond momentary satisfaction.

Your most recent email suggested that I “try reading” and “following” a few selected verses from the Bible.  I have read and continue to read the Bible and if there’s anything I hope to follow, it’s Jesus.  I am, however, not willing to read any one verse of the Bible without considering the entirety of the biblical witness.  And it’s when I challenge myself to follow Jesus, that I’m most convinced my understanding of sexuality and human relationship reflects God’s promised future.  As much as I would wish it otherwise, I also know hardly anything I could say to you, or list of verses I would suggest you read, would have any chance of changing your mind.

Your ‘decision’ to stop patronizing our restaurant saddens me as well.  It’s not sad because we will miss having you dine with us.  I’m sad for you.  Not only are you going to miss out on “the best place to eat in town” and “your favorite restaurant,” you’re not going to be able to experience the hospitality that we love to shower upon all of our guests, regardless of their political or religious convictions.  I believe if we had taken efforts to make sure our customers opinions matched our own, we wouldn’t have stayed in business for very long.  I’m sad for you because the world is going to become a very small place in a very big hurry now that you’re taking this step.  I can only imagine that it's must be frightening to be closing yourselves off from so much of this world that God has created.

Finally, I will pray for you.  I trust that God will strengthen and care for us in the days ahead, keeping our hearts wide open to see others as they are.

This whole episode has given me more than enough to occupy my mind and I'll most likely be posting some more thoughts here as I process it through.  I'd be curious to know your thoughts too.