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.
No comments:
Post a Comment