Above the Law?
Amanda Carpenter reports that a group of gay artists are threatening to boycott California Music Theater because its artistic director, Scott Eckern, donated $1,000 of his own friggin’ money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. In response, the executive producer, Richard Lewis, told reporters that the board of directors had held an emergency meeting in which the artists in question were urged to “mind their own fucking business” and discouraged from “letting the door hit their asses on the way out” if they coudln’t handle dissent, “as if a measure that passed handily in the bluest fucking state in the union could reasonably be called ‘dissent’ anyway.”
Sorry, I goofed. That wasn’t what Lewis said, it was what he should have said. What he actually said was that it was “too early to tell” how Mr. Eckern’s support of Proposition 8 would affect his employment at that institution. In other words, it was “too early to tell” whether CMT should obey Sections 1101(b) and 1102 of the California Labor Code like the rest of us, or whether laws are for little people.
UPDATE: The terrorists win.
UPDATE x2: Just for the record, the answer is no, I’m not happy with how the Cooper fiasco played out, either. Cooper Firearms should have put out a press release clarifying that Dan Cooper speaks for himself, not for the company, and that should have been the end of it.
November 13th, 2008 at 1:22 am
He resigned, quote unquote.
I smell a big fat constructive discharge lawsuit a’comin’.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Well, to be fair, what’s different about the board of directors of Cooper Firearms asking Dan Cooper to step down over his support of Obama since it threatened to hurt their business and this?
I mean, I work in a fairly left leaning place. While it would suck for me, if I were to become so loud about my political opinions that it caused issues with the workplace, I could understand my company letting me go. Now, if my boss was a Democrat and fired me simply because I wasn’t, then I could see a lawsuit, but if my political leanings actually caused true financial harm, then it would be in their best interest to see me leave.
Or am I missing something here? (Wouldn’t be the first time)
November 13th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Three differences come to mind. The most basic one is that California laws don’t apply in Montana. Another is that AFAIK Dan Cooper was not an employee, so a comparable Montana law (assuming one exists) probably would not cover his situation, anyway. A third, though probably the one that would carry the least legal weight, is that Cooper Firearms is a friggin’ firearms company, not a widget company that just happens to count a large number of bitter, gun-clinging Obama haters among its customer base.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I guess I’m missing where the problem is. Do gay artists not have the right to refuse to do business with someone who actively lobbies against their interests? Are they supposed to just shut up and stop fighting for those interests because they lost this one particular vote? This makes no sense to me, and I’m with Robb here: I suspect that if the boycotters were boycotting for some conservative cause, you’d be cheering them rather than jeering them.
tgirsch´s last blog post..Lincecum Wins NL Cy Young
November 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Ah, I’m not looking at it from a legal standpoint, I guess that’s where I’m off.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:13 am
However, I would like to chime in that from my perspective, I have no issue with letting someone go when their actions or beliefs cause you financial harm.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:47 am
TGirsch, it’s a free country, for the next couple of months at least, so feel free to suspect anything you want. FWIW, however, such suspicions are dreadfully wrong.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
OK, so mea culpa on the cheer/jeer thing. However, I still fail to see where, exactly, someone has risen to the level of “scum” in this incident. Should we all just STFU and blissfully continue to do business with people who actively lobby against our personal interests?
tgirsch´s last blog post..Lincecum Wins NL Cy Young
November 13th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Upon reading more details, it seems to me that this is a case where there’s really nobody to root for here.
tgirsch’s last blog post..Lincecum Wins NL Cy Young
November 13th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Whoops, would have sworn I put in a close link tag there…
tgirsch´s last blog post..Lincecum Wins NL Cy Young
November 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
"Should we all just STFU and blissfully continue to do business with people who actively lobby against our personal interests?"
Well,not exactly but, close. Some years ago I taught in a district where a majority voted to change the way we paid our health insurance premiums. Those of us with families, like me, took a big pay cut by having to pay more out of pocket for health coverage so those older single payers could get their PPO’s for free.
Should I have quit because my interests were not served. Or made them quit? NO! I worked for the next two years convincing enough of my colleagues why we should go back to way we used to pay. And after two years I won the debate and vote.
Enough of whining "we play my way, or I take my ball home."
November 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
**quietly wishes that X would not use the term “terrorists” so loosely”
November 13th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
TGirsch:
Only because the scum in this case happens to be scum that supports an agenda you agree with. If the roles had been reversed, and some company was firing employees for having donated to the no on 8 campaign, I’d be railing against them just as hard – but I have a sneaking suspicion you woudln’t be arguing with me about it.
From where I sit, going after someone’s livelihood simply because his political views differ from yours places one beneath pond scum. At least real pond scum serves some useful purposes in the world. These people do not.
Hell, yes. If you think the country is balkanized now, just imagine how it would be if everyone acted like the gay mafia that inspired this story. Conservatives would boycott almost everything Hollywood puts out, not just the obnoxiously political stuff, but every movie starring or directed by the usual suspects. But whatever one thinks about individuals doing business with businesses who involve themselves in a particular issue, boycotting businesses simply because the refuse to fire individuals who exercise their constitutional rights is downright fascist.
Hugo: sorry to disappoint you by using the word “terrorist” to describe people who try to get their way by terrorizing people rather than engaging them on the issues. BTW, we do have a bet to settle, right?
November 14th, 2008 at 2:34 am
If the roles had been reversed, and some company was firing employees for having …
I wasn’t aware that anybody fired anybody. I do not think the company would have been within their rights to fire the guy.
From where I sit, going after someone’s livelihood simply because his political views differ from yours places one beneath pond scum.
And that’s why I moderated my stance after reading more details. I have no problem at all with refusing to do business with someone who actively fights for a cause you find abhorrent (no matter what that cause is), but trying to get that somebody fired is another story.
Hell, yes.
On that, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t see why I shouldn’t allow my convictions to influence my decisions on whom to do business with. Would you continue to do business with someone who lobbies against gun rights if there were a comparable but pro-gun alternative available to you?
Look, I understand that there’s such a thing as taking things too far, but I don’t see what’s inherently wrong with “voting with your dollars,” as free market types like to say, or “if you don’t like it, go somewhere else,” as the conservatives like to say.
Finally, on the use of the term “terrorist,” I suppose your use is technically accurate, but it takes a whole lot of the sting out of the term if you insist on using it in this context. Most reasonable observers would agree, I think, that right or wrong, calling for someone’s proverbial head (i.e. firing) is not even the same league as literally cutting off their head, or killing a bunch of innocent people to “send a message.” Sure, jaywalking and assault are both technically “crimes,” but if you insist on frequently referring to jaywalkers and the like as “criminals,” you’re going to find yourself needed a harsher term to describe assailants and the like. Then again, we’ve established quite well that Xrlq loves him some hyperbole! :)
tgirsch´s last blog post..Accountability
November 14th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Technically, they didn’t. He resigned “voluntarily,” after they scheduled an emergency meeting.
Personally, I think a clear line needs to be drawn between individuals and institutions. No one ever accused CMT of being against gay marriage, or of involving itself in the political process in any way. The whole reason for the threatened boycott was that they had the nerve to employ one individual who did. And for that, the institution should have stood behind their employee and respectfully told the crowd to f*** off (and if something had to give, it would be “respectfully” part).
I appreciate you moderating your stance, but if you think there was no one to root for you haven’t moderated it enough. All Eckern did was donate his own money, on his own time, to a cause he personally believed in. He was completely within his rights to do that.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am
[...] blogger Xrlq (in comments) sure loves him some hyperbole: … [I]t’s a free country, for the next couple of months at least [...]
November 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
X:
Eckern wasn’t just an ordinary employee. He was the boss. The gay artists wouldn’t just be working for a company who happens to employ someone who lobbies against their interests; they would be working for that very person. Maybe you don’t think the distinction is important, but I do.
Of course, the institution could have told the activists to f*** off, but they’ve got their economic self-interest to look out for. I doubt they’d take much solace in “taking a stand” if they found themselves unable to put on any productions.
All Eckern did was donate his own money, on his own time, to a cause he personally believed in. He was completely within his rights to do that.
And the gay rights activists weren’t completely within their rights to speak out against his actions? I don’t get it. I guess I didn’t realize that it was somehow illegal or immoral to use economic pressure to advance your goals.
Now I’ll freely admit that this troubles me, because I’m not entirely sure where the line is or ought to be. But just as I’m free to express my opinion, others are free to react to my opinion, such that when I publicly express an opinion that’s unpopular, I’m not sure I have a right to expect that to be completely consequence-free. I shouldn’t be arrested or fined for, say, giving a large donation to the Klan, but I shouldn’t expect doing so to have no impact on how (or even whether) people interact with me, either.
tgirsch´s last blog post..Gotta Love Them Wingers!
November 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Now if it was a BALLET company, I could see the problem….
November 14th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Yes, I believe I owe a donation (alas) to the charity of your choice.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Which, of course, is Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Animal Sanctuary … er… I mean, Best Friends.
BTW, my own debt to Mythago’s charity of choice is still open, as that bet was over how the court cases would be decided under then-existing law, not over whether voters would ultimately undo it. She hasn’t claimed it yet, so feel free to drop her a line if you’re still in touch.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Donation sent, to a group you and I both support wholeheartedly. You can find Mythago round my place.
November 16th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I recall reading some time back that donations to the Socialist party don’t have to be made public because of the stigma that it might cause. If that’s the case, I think we are about to the point where we can go to court to get donations to conservative causes listed the same way.
Liberals are always so impressed with the courage of other liberals who "speak out", but this courage never seems to carry any risk. By contrast, conservatives seem to get kicked out of school, physically attacked, lose their jobs, or get sued fairly often over their political convictions.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
However, I would like to chime in that from my perspective, I have no issue with letting someone go when their actions or beliefs cause you financial harm.
So you consider it a valid argument that you should be allowed to fire an employee because their beliefs, their political donations, or to whom they voted COULD cause you financial harm? Or at what point is the threshold?