Local Effort To Boycott Businesses Owned By Trump Supporters Brings Strong Response From GOP

[Jayhawker Soule]

You paint with such a fat brush, Sunstone.

Actually ...

• The term is "broad brush".
• The depiction of context often warrants broad strokes.
• And, in fact, @Sunstone is a rather good artist.

So ALL Trump supporters deserve zero attention in conversation in your opinion... Because they ALL have no standards.

On the contrary, Trump's financial supporters deserve a great deal of attention precisely because of their standards.

What a horrible attitude.

Perhaps you should whine less.

...It just so happens I'm a Trump supporter. And I'll be voting for him again in 2020.

Really? I'm shocked!

 

[dianaiad]

Well, if you're saying you'd drive further on principle, then good for you. My point was that most people probably wouldn't do that.

That depends. I would not boycott a business simply because the proprietor was a liberal. I WOULD if he made it clear that he thought conservatives were a lesser class of citizen. But that would only be because I personally wouldn't want to shop there. I wouldn't join a group boycott. Of anybody.

But I was referring to the fact that in this day and age, given the ease of travel (either by car, bus, subway or train) there is no difference between half a mile and five miles. It was a one-off comment. Shoot, I have to drive at least ten miles to get to ANY shopping of any sort, and usually I end up driving thirty or more miles....and I do not live in the 'boonies,' but in a city larger than most state capitals. My only point was that you, in order to make your point to most Americans, should have widened the distance; half a mile to fifty miles, for instance. Most of us wouldn't worry much about lesser distances.

Which, btw, is why OAC's interpretation of the GND wouldn't work anywhere but NY, DC and...MAYBE, Boston.

Well, as I said, there has to be more to this story than this. Besides, I don't see your point here as an argument against boycotting in general. You're pointing out that the store was libeled, and based on this, your argument appears to be that these students did not have a valid reason for boycotting the store or engaging in those tactics.

They didn't. I take it you didn't read the article?

The store owner caught a couple of black kids shoplifting, and as per store policy, held them and called the cops. Evidently, even though the policy was strictly followed no matter WHAT race the culprit is, that was enough for the student body to call the store racist....and to boycott and demonstrate. Now a BOYCOTT alone was damaging enough, given that the bakery had been serving the student body at Oberlin for many decades, but like the 'boycotts' of the liberals today, it didn't stop at merely 'don't shop there." Demonstrations and vandalism ensued, along with harassment of the employees and family members of the owner.

Now the shoplifters actually confessed; THEY said they had been shoplifting, and that they were treated without reference to their race: no differently than any other shoplifter. Didn't make a difference.

I guess that this bakery should have put a sign outside, like the one I saw outside a book store in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, stating that it was OK, everybody of every race, ethnicity and sexual orientation is welcome, and then added that if you shoplift and you are a minority, that it will be OK because prosecuting a minority shoplifter is racist.

But setting this case aside, if there were those who had a valid and truthful reason for boycotting something or someone, wouldn't that be different?

PErsonally? One can decide not to shop somewhere for any reason one wants...including simply not liking the display in the window or that the door makes funny noises when it is opened.

I just won't join a group, nor will I post a list of businesses to be boycotted simply because they do NOT have a sign outside saying that everybody is welcome, or because they DO have a sign outside their personal dwelling supporting the 'other guy.' ....the reason I won't do this is because groups engage in propaganda. YOUR groups, groups that agree with me...all of 'em, and in most cases that means twisting facts to suit themselves.

And when, such as with Oberlin and certain people who post whole lists of people to be 'banned' (and that is the word used, most of the time) or boycotted, they are urging boycotts because of inaccurate information, they are exposing themselves to legal action.

My own personal opinion of this is....go for it. If you damage me because you claim I do something I don't, and spread your claims around and urge 'the public' to join in damaging me, I'm going to sue you. And I'm going to win.

 

[dianaiad]

You mean to say that you cannot understand your errors in the past when we have had discussions. But here is your post in its entirety:

"The first is free speech...it does NOT damage businesses owned by people with whom they disagree....and the left loves the ability of corporations to donate to their campaigns, too.

Donate to a campaign? That candidate still has to go win votes.

Boycott a business because it disagrees with your own opinion? That is the OPPOSITE of free speech, and damages people on a very basic level. I thought the Democrats were FOR 'the little guy?" Or is it that they are only for the 'little guy' if that little guy knows the goose step and marches properly to the politically correct rhetoric?"



The last paragraph is where you screwed up. Boycotting a business is free speech. A person is not forced to buy from any vendor. That is all that a boycott is. It is an organized free choice not to do business with a person or corporation. You may not like that action. I think that most boycotts are spectacularly ineffective myself. But it still is "free speech".

Boycotting a business is free speech, if it is personal and for personal reasons. I am referring to the 'formal' and organized boycotts, where someone urges others to damage a business simply because it has different political opinions.

That's extortion, not free speech.

Here. Let me help:

Free speech: I'm never shopping there because I don't like the service, and besides I think they all support OAC for president.

Extortion: Here is a list of businesses who don't have rainbow signs in their stores and signs on the sidewalks proclaiming that everybody (except, of course, conservatives) is welcome, regardless of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, The LACK of such signs is absolute proof that the store is owned by, and will only serve properly, white supremacists. Don't shop at any of them. Oh, and here is a list of people who have donated to Republican, conservative, or conservative supported, causes. Don't shop there either, and spread the word. These people are EVIL.

If you can't see the difference, then there's no talking to you.

 

[sooda]

Of course you can, because of their employment policies and their treatment toward employees.

...But digging up people's voting preferences, and then persecuting an entire group seems like a really horrible idea.

Who is digging up what? Hobby lobby invested in for profit prisons and stole Iraq artifacts from Iraq.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Boycotting a business is free speech, if it is personal and for personal reasons. I am referring to the 'formal' and organized boycotts, where someone urges others to damage a business simply because it has different political opinions.

That's extortion, not free speech.

Here. Let me help:

Free speech: I'm never shopping there because I don't like the service, and besides I think they all support OAC for president.

Extortion: Here is a list of businesses who don't have rainbow signs in their stores and signs on the sidewalks proclaiming that everybody (except, of course, conservatives) is welcome, regardless of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, The LACK of such signs is absolute proof that the store is owned by, and will only serve properly, white supremacists. Don't shop at any of them. Oh, and here is a list of people who have donated to Republican, conservative, or conservative supported, causes. Don't shop there either, and spread the word. These people are EVIL.

If you can't see the difference, then there's no talking to you.

Um, no. Choosing not to shop somewhere because you disagree with their values is protected free speech, not extortion.

You do realize that extortion is forcing someone to pay you money, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Boycotting a business is free speech, if it is personal and for personal reasons. I am referring to the 'formal' and organized boycotts, where someone urges others to damage a business simply because it has different political opinions.

That's extortion, not free speech.

Here. Let me help:

Free speech: I'm never shopping there because I don't like the service, and besides I think they all support OAC for president.

Extortion: Here is a list of businesses who don't have rainbow signs in their stores and signs on the sidewalks proclaiming that everybody (except, of course, conservatives) is welcome, regardless of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, The LACK of such signs is absolute proof that the store is owned by, and will only serve properly, white supremacists. Don't shop at any of them. Oh, and here is a list of people who have donated to Republican, conservative, or conservative supported, causes. Don't shop there either, and spread the word. These people are EVIL.

If you can't see the difference, then there's no talking to you.

Sorry, you don't get to redefine what a boycott is:

Definition of BOYCOTT


That article also has a history of the word that shows how incredibly wrong you are.

 

[dianaiad]

Wow, you really have no clue. The reason that they lost that lawsuit is that they made false claims against that store and used their authority to harm them.

Well, duh. just like all the boycotts urged by the left at the moment. They make false claims and are using their authority (power) to harm people.

Tell me, what clear false things were said about Trump? Where is the libel?

It's a little difficult to libel 'public people,' SZ. The thing is, many false things have been claimed about Trump. You just don't want to believe that, because you buy into the left wing propaganda. I DO believe that many false things have been said about Trump, and I freely acknowledge that I, too, choose the propaganda I believe.

Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that they made an incorrect statement. By the way this is a case of where the person accusing libel has the burden of proof. The bakery was able to prove libel. You don't just get to shout it. You would have to prove that the Trump supporters were libeled. That they had a free choice to support Trump does not make the actions of those boycotting them libel. I look forward to your post.

One cannot libel Trump....libeling 'public figures' is very, very difficult to prove. However, one CAN libel private businesses and people, and those who boycott businesses and Trump supporters as a result of making false claims about THEM (such as...they are racist...) are indeed guilty of libel.

But one does not need to commit libel to commit extortion, which is also illegal. That is, threatening to close a business unless they put rainbow signs in the aisles is extortion. It's wrong, and it is an attempt to violate the freedom of speech of the business. Unless one can PROVE that said business kicks LBGT...whatever, I can never remember what that last initial is supposed to be...folks out or mistreats them because they are LBGT, and treats them differently than they do 'straight' people, and unless one can prove that this business physically or metaphorically lynches minorities and puts 'whites' on a pedestal, it's extortion.

I can tell you this: I used to manage a store, many years ago. Many, many years ago. A shoe store. I didn't give a good hoot what flavor the foot belonged to: black, white, gay, didn't matter, and the associates and I (I was the only "white' person working there, btw, and I trained my replacement, a very proud Latina).

There is no way in the flippin' universe that I would put rainbow signs in the aisles or a sign outside the door saying that it didn't matter what one's race, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion was, they were welcome and could 'feel safe' in the store.

That should be utterly understood, and only when the manager or associates made it clear that there WAS some discrimination, by some action, should accusations be made.

It would be...and is...one of my lines in the sand. I won't do it, and I think considerably less of those who bow to pressure and do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, duh. just like all the boycotts urged by the left at the moment. They make false claims and are using their authority (power) to harm people.



It's a little difficult to libel 'public people,' SZ. The thing is, many false things have been claimed about Trump. You just don't want to believe that, because you buy into the left wing propaganda. I DO believe that many false things have been said about Trump, and I freely acknowledge that I, too, . . .

There is no libel of private businesses either. Nor extortion. You might want to invest in a dictionary. And how did you need up your quotes so badly?

 

[dianaiad]

Um, no. Choosing not to shop somewhere because you disagree with their values is protected free speech, not extortion.

You do realize that extortion is forcing someone to pay you money, right?

The definition of extortion:

extortion
noun
ex·tor·tion | \ ik-ˈstȯr-shən \
Definition of extortion


1: the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property


Please note: 'especially money' is not 'Money exclusively."

Blackmail, also, isn't always about money.

Both things, extortion or blackmail, are most often about money, but both concepts encompass everything else, as well. When your kid threatens his seatmate with being beaten up on his way home from school if he doesn't help him cheat on the exam.....that's extortion.

Threatening anybody with violence or harm unless an act is performed (like putting a sign out, or selling 'p ussy hat' patterns, or allowing shoplifters to go free because they are of a specific skin color) is extortion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The definition of extortion:

extortion
noun
ex·tor·tion | \ ik-ˈstȯr-shən \
Definition of extortion


1: the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property


Please note: 'especially money' is not 'Money exclusively."

Blackmail, also, isn't always about money.

Both things, extortion or blackmail, are most often about money, but both concepts encompass everything else, as well. When your kid threatens his seatmate with being beaten up on his way home from school if he doesn't help him cheat on the exam.....that's extortion.

Threatening anybody with violence or harm unless an act is performed (like putting a sign out, or selling 'p ussy hat' patterns, or allowing shoplifters to go free because they are of a specific skin color) is extortion.

So no extortion either. It is so nice when people understand their own errors.


Edit: Oh wait, she did not see her ignorant error? And that is after quoting a source that showed her to be wrong?

 

[sooda]

That depends. I would not boycott a business simply because the proprietor was a liberal. I WOULD if he made it clear that he thought conservatives were a lesser class of citizen. But that would only be because I personally wouldn't want to shop there. I wouldn't join a group boycott. Of anybody.

But I was referring to the fact that in this day and age, given the ease of travel (either by car, bus, subway or train) there is no difference between half a mile and five miles. It was a one-off comment. Shoot, I have to drive at least ten miles to get to ANY shopping of any sort, and usually I end up driving thirty or more miles....and I do not live in the 'boonies,' but in a city larger than most state capitals. My only point was that you, in order to make your point to most Americans, should have widened the distance; half a mile to fifty miles, for instance. Most of us wouldn't worry much about lesser distances.

Which, btw, is why OAC's interpretation of the GND wouldn't work anywhere but NY, DC and...MAYBE, Boston.





They didn't. I take it you didn't read the article?

The store owner caught a couple of black kids shoplifting, and as per store policy, held them and called the cops. Evidently, even though the policy was strictly followed no matter WHAT race the culprit is, that was enough for the student body to call the store racist....and to boycott and demonstrate. Now a BOYCOTT alone was damaging enough, given that the bakery had been serving the student body at Oberlin for many decades, but like the 'boycotts' of the liberals today, it didn't stop at merely 'don't shop there." Demonstrations and vandalism ensued, along with harassment of the employees and family members of the owner.

Now the shoplifters actually confessed; THEY said they had been shoplifting, and that they were treated without reference to their race: no differently than any other shoplifter. Didn't make a difference.

I guess that this bakery should have put a sign outside, like the one I saw outside a book store in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, stating that it was OK, everybody of every race, ethnicity and sexual orientation is welcome, and then added that if you shoplift and you are a minority, that it will be OK because prosecuting a minority shoplifter is racist.



PErsonally? One can decide not to shop somewhere for any reason one wants...including simply not liking the display in the window or that the door makes funny noises when it is opened.

I just won't join a group, nor will I post a list of businesses to be boycotted simply because they do NOT have a sign outside saying that everybody is welcome, or because they DO have a sign outside their personal dwelling supporting the 'other guy.' ....the reason I won't do this is because groups engage in propaganda. YOUR groups, groups that agree with me...all of 'em, and in most cases that means twisting facts to suit themselves.

And when, such as with Oberlin and certain people who post whole lists of people to be 'banned' (and that is the word used, most of the time) or boycotted, they are urging boycotts because of inaccurate information, they are exposing themselves to legal action.

My own personal opinion of this is....go for it. If you damage me because you claim I do something I don't, and spread your claims around and urge 'the public' to join in damaging me, I'm going to sue you. And I'm going to win.

Shop lifting is illegal.. Its theft no matter what your race.

You can't sue me for where is choose to shop.

 

[Stevicus]

That depends. I would not boycott a business simply because the proprietor was a liberal. I WOULD if he made it clear that he thought conservatives were a lesser class of citizen. But that would only be because I personally wouldn't want to shop there. I wouldn't join a group boycott. Of anybody.

But I was referring to the fact that in this day and age, given the ease of travel (either by car, bus, subway or train) there is no difference between half a mile and five miles. It was a one-off comment. Shoot, I have to drive at least ten miles to get to ANY shopping of any sort, and usually I end up driving thirty or more miles....and I do not live in the 'boonies,' but in a city larger than most state capitals. My only point was that you, in order to make your point to most Americans, should have widened the distance; half a mile to fifty miles, for instance. Most of us wouldn't worry much about lesser distances.

Which, btw, is why OAC's interpretation of the GND wouldn't work anywhere but NY, DC and...MAYBE, Boston.

It's not just a matter of distance, but also time. Depending on the time of day and the level of traffic, a difference between a half-mile and 5 miles might mean 20-30 minutes. On public transport, it can be more than an hour. I don't live in a big city; it's more a mid-sized city where the population grows faster than the road system can keep up.

They didn't. I take it you didn't read the article?

The store owner caught a couple of black kids shoplifting, and as per store policy, held them and called the cops. Evidently, even though the policy was strictly followed no matter WHAT race the culprit is, that was enough for the student body to call the store racist....and to boycott and demonstrate. Now a BOYCOTT alone was damaging enough, given that the bakery had been serving the student body at Oberlin for many decades, but like the 'boycotts' of the liberals today, it didn't stop at merely 'don't shop there." Demonstrations and vandalism ensued, along with harassment of the employees and family members of the owner.

Now the shoplifters actually confessed; THEY said they had been shoplifting, and that they were treated without reference to their race: no differently than any other shoplifter. Didn't make a difference.

I guess that this bakery should have put a sign outside, like the one I saw outside a book store in Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, stating that it was OK, everybody of every race, ethnicity and sexual orientation is welcome, and then added that if you shoplift and you are a minority, that it will be OK because prosecuting a minority shoplifter is racist.

The part that seems missing here (and perhaps you can explain this, since you apparently know all the details of this incident) is that, if the shoplifters confessed and it was clearly demonstrated that the incident had nothing to do with race, why weren't any of these students told or informed of this? Did they not tell anyone, or was it a case that they were told, but simply didn't care? But if that's the case, why? What the heck was REALLY going on here?

And then there was the court case, where the college had to shell out $11 million - money which would have been better put to the purpose of education. All because a few people decided to reject factual information and behave like idiots. I'm simply curious as to what they had to say for themselves, given the outcome of the case. What was going through their minds? That might give us some insight as to what the root of the problem was here.

PErsonally? One can decide not to shop somewhere for any reason one wants...including simply not liking the display in the window or that the door makes funny noises when it is opened.

I just won't join a group, nor will I post a list of businesses to be boycotted simply because they do NOT have a sign outside saying that everybody is welcome, or because they DO have a sign outside their personal dwelling supporting the 'other guy.' ....the reason I won't do this is because groups engage in propaganda. YOUR groups, groups that agree with me...all of 'em, and in most cases that means twisting facts to suit themselves.

And when, such as with Oberlin and certain people who post whole lists of people to be 'banned' (and that is the word used, most of the time) or boycotted, they are urging boycotts because of inaccurate information, they are exposing themselves to legal action.

My own personal opinion of this is....go for it. If you damage me because you claim I do something I don't, and spread your claims around and urge 'the public' to join in damaging me, I'm going to sue you. And I'm going to win.

My question didn't have anything to do with propaganda or inaccurate information.

Businesses also have lists. They might ban certain customers or refuse to hire certain people because of someone's "list." Credit agencies also keeps lists - often filled with inaccurate or outdated information. If businesses can do things like that, so can people.

 

[dianaiad]

So no extortion either. It is so nice when people understand their own errors.


Edit: Oh wait, she did not see her ignorant error? And that is after quoting a source that showed her to be wrong?

Excuse me, but what part of 'especially money' meant 'exclusively money' to you?

Never mind, I have to take a vacation from you for a bit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excuse me, but what part of 'especially money' meant 'exclusively money' to you?

Never mind, I have to take a vacation from you for a bit.

Excuse me, but what part of 'especially money' meant 'exclusively money' to you?

Never mind, I have to take a vacation from you for a bit.

You forgot the threat part. Here is a better source for you:

Extortion - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I agree with DeMarco, that this is a very fascist attitude.

I would never knowingly patronize any Trump Republican's business unless doing so would spite my family or myself. These people are not the friends of America's liberals, who owe them nothing. I do not consider them my fellow anything. I've been listening to Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter for half my life. These are enemies, as are all who find their messages resonant.

We left America, and take pride in supporting no American Trump supporters or their business because of that - not even with taxes. Even here in Mexico, we have choices, and one of the pizza delivery restaurants is owned by a vocal Trump supporter. I'm ordering pizza tonight. Not from the Trumper. Keep your pizza.

Is that what you meant by fascism - boycotting Trump supporters? I call that freedom of conscience.

 

[dianaiad]

Shop lifting is illegal.. Its theft no matter what your race.

You can't sue me for where is choose to shop.

......and yet another person who didn't read the post.

Yes. Shoplifting is illegal. No matter what your race is.

HOWEVER, calling a store owner a racist because he prosecutes a minority shoplifter is libel, and if you establish a boycott with the intent to damage the business because you claim that prosecuting a minority shoplifter...because the shoplifter is a member of a minority...is racist, You could very well get sued.

Personally, I think that telling a business that if they don't put rainbow flags all over their stores and a sign out front declaring that everybody (except, of course, conservatives) is welcome and will be "safe' in that store they WILL be boycotted and 'banned,' is extortion and illegal/actionable. As in, the store can sue the ringleader of the boycott.

If it is taken to court, the precedents are very much in favor of the business, in this. YOU want to personally 'not shop' somewhere? Entirely your business and you can make that choice for any insane, inane or silly reason you wish. However, if you want to encourage other people to join you in your boycott, you had better be ready to prove your allegations.

The sad thing is, lawsuits cost money and time. A business may well look at things and figure that rainbow flags and signs on the walk are cheaper in both than taking the extortionist to court. Indeed, California, at least, has a bunch of people doing really well at 'nuisance law suits,' where they sue companies for sexual harassment or discrimination or any number of things, but ask for settlements just barely lower than the cost of the lawsuit. The business usually settles the suit, knowing that it is cheaper to settle than to defend against it. It's extortion.

This is the SAME THING. The left is using the boycott to extort support for their positions, to make it look like a whole lot of people are either supporting THEIR cause, or if they don't, are racist bigots.

It's very typical, unfortunately.

 

[Curious George]

......and yet another person who didn't read the post.

Yes. Shoplifting is illegal. No matter what your race is.

HOWEVER, calling a store owner a racist because he prosecutes a minority shoplifter is libel, and if you establish a boycott with the intent to damage the business because you claim that prosecuting a minority shoplifter...because the shoplifter is a member of a minority...is racist, You could very well get sued.

Personally, I think that telling a business that if they don't put rainbow flags all over their stores and a sign out front declaring that everybody (except, of course, conservatives) is welcome and will be "safe' in that store they WILL be boycotted and 'banned,' is extortion and illegal/actionable. As in, the store can sue the ringleader of the boycott.

If it is taken to court, the precedents are very much in favor of the business, in this. YOU want to personally 'not shop' somewhere? Entirely your business and you can make that choice for any insane, inane or silly reason you wish. However, if you want to encourage other people to join you in your boycott, you had better be ready to prove your allegations.

The sad thing is, lawsuits cost money and time. A business may well look at things and figure that rainbow flags and signs on the walk are cheaper in both than taking the extortionist to court. Indeed, California, at least, has a bunch of people doing really well at 'nuisance law suits,' where they sue companies for sexual harassment or discrimination or any number of things, but ask for settlements just barely lower than the cost of the lawsuit. The business usually settles the suit, knowing that it is cheaper to settle than to defend against it. It's extortion.

This is the SAME THING. The left is using the boycott to extort support for their positions, to make it look like a whole lot of people are either supporting THEIR cause, or if they don't, are racist bigots.

It's very typical, unfortunately.

Also if you actively encourage someone to kill someone else you could be charged.

But we are not talking about that. We are discussing whether boycotting trump supporters is free speech. We are not really discussing slander or libel or murder.

 

[dianaiad]

It's not just a matter of distance, but also time. Depending on the time of day and the level of traffic, a difference between a half-mile and 5 miles might mean 20-30 minutes. On public transport, it can be more than an hour. I don't live in a big city; it's more a mid-sized city where the population grows faster than the road system can keep up.



The part that seems missing here (and perhaps you can explain this, since you apparently know all the details of this incident) is that, if the shoplifters confessed and it was clearly demonstrated that the incident had nothing to do with race, why weren't any of these students told or informed of this? Did they not tell anyone, or was it a case that they were told, but simply didn't care? But if that's the case, why? What the heck was REALLY going on here?

The story is quite clear. Frankly, it was mob rule, the students were encouraged to continue the boycott/demonstrations, and nobody attempted to put a stop to it. THAT'S WHY THE COLLEGE WAS SUED AND LOST. It was a very typical left wing political stunt...the family that owned the bakery, you see, had been Republican for a very long time. What, are you struggling to find a way to blame the victim here? The bakery owners shouldn't have been conservative? WHAT????? THEY did nothing wrong.

And then there was the court case, where the college had to shell out $11 million - money which would have been better put to the purpose of education. All because a few people decided to reject factual information and behave like idiots. I'm simply curious as to what they had to say for themselves, given the outcome of the case. What was going through their minds? That might give us some insight as to what the root of the problem was here.

The 'root' of the problem was the left wing attitude of the college professors and their students, who thought that any perceived occurrence of racism, factual or not, was meat for their boycott grinder; it served the purpose of extending their political and ideological ends. They didn't CARE that they were wrong. They only wanted to make their point, regardless of who was damaged as a result. That's why Oberlin was sued, and why they lost. Oberlin claimed 'free speech,' but it was proven that the bakery was targeted falsely, that the college and the professors knew the claims were false, and neither they, nor the student leaders of the boycott and the demonstrations, cared. The Bakery was Republican, capitalistic, and thus fair game.

My question didn't have anything to do with propaganda or inaccurate information.

Businesses also have lists. They might ban certain customers or refuse to hire certain people because of someone's "list." Credit agencies also keeps lists - often filled with inaccurate or outdated information. If businesses can do things like that, so can people.

And if the information on those lists is inaccurate, People can, and DO, SUE. If a credit reporting agency has inaccurate information on you, and refuses to correct it, and that information harms you (by getting credit denied, for instance, or a job offer rescinded) that credit reporting agency is in big trouble. YOU can sue. The government will levy rather large fines.

Businesses which ban customers ....well, mostly that's illegal, remember? One CAN ban someone for stealing every time he walks in, but he'd better be able to prove that. He CAN"T ban someone because of race or gender or sexual orientation or religious persuasion. That's in the law, remember?

So yeah, businesses can do that. And if they do, they may well get sued, and when they are sued, they very well may LOSE, both the case and a great deal of their money.

 

[dianaiad]

You forgot the threat part. Here is a better source for you:

Extortion - Wikipedia

Thank you for illustrating that I was absolutely correct. I am surprised...but very appreciative.

 

[sooda]

......and yet another person who didn't read the post.

Yes. Shoplifting is illegal. No matter what your race is.

HOWEVER, calling a store owner a racist because he prosecutes a minority shoplifter is libel, and if you establish a boycott with the intent to damage the business because you claim that prosecuting a minority shoplifter...because the shoplifter is a member of a minority...is racist, You could very well get sued.

Personally, I think that telling a business that if they don't put rainbow flags all over their stores and a sign out front declaring that everybody (except, of course, conservatives) is welcome and will be "safe' in that store they WILL be boycotted and 'banned,' is extortion and illegal/actionable. As in, the store can sue the ringleader of the boycott.

If it is taken to court, the precedents are very much in favor of the business, in this. YOU want to personally 'not shop' somewhere? Entirely your business and you can make that choice for any insane, inane or silly reason you wish. However, if you want to encourage other people to join you in your boycott, you had better be ready to prove your allegations.

The sad thing is, lawsuits cost money and time. A business may well look at things and figure that rainbow flags and signs on the walk are cheaper in both than taking the extortionist to court. Indeed, California, at least, has a bunch of people doing really well at 'nuisance law suits,' where they sue companies for sexual harassment or discrimination or any number of things, but ask for settlements just barely lower than the cost of the lawsuit. The business usually settles the suit, knowing that it is cheaper to settle than to defend against it. It's extortion.

This is the SAME THING. The left is using the boycott to extort support for their positions, to make it look like a whole lot of people are either supporting THEIR cause, or if they don't, are racist bigots.

It's very typical, unfortunately.

What does shoplifting have to do with boycotting a business you don't want to do business with?