Another Comment on Choice

Thanks to Robert for his response.  Perhaps my own earlier response was not clear that I agree that what was done to Mr. Eckern was wrong.  My hypothetical was intended to try to clarify the scope of what constitutes wrong behavior in this context.  The behavior in my hypo might very well intimidate the small business owner from exercising his rights - indeed, that is the hope of the boycotter - but I (and I take it Robert, since he called the hypo inapposite) think that that is different from what happened here and constitutes an acceptable private response.  So there may be no disagreement between me and Robert.

Denise Hunnell draws the same distinction in an e-mail she sent me earlier today:

"You are absolutely right that it is proper to boycott a shop if the owner supports a cause one opposes. I didn't buy General Mills cereals for years because General Mills donated money to Planned Parenthood. If the sole owner of a small business or the corporate representative of a large company publicly support an offensive cause, by all means, vote with your feet.

"In the case of Mr. Eckern, I believe it is very different. He acted as an individual. He was in no way publicly supporting Prop 8 other than by his financial donation. His vote was by secret ballot and therefore not a public act. He did not use his professional position to support or campaign for Prop 8.

"I think it is very dangerous to allow such bullying. Does this mean that if I work for a coffee house where the clientele predominantly supports Democrats and I give a contribution to the RNC, I am at risk for losing my job? My action is private and in no way reflected by anything I do at work. However, this private act is subject to public scrutiny if anyone cares to scan the donation logs. It seems to me that a private political donation is similar to free speech. Allowing such coercion will have a chilling effect on democracy."