Perhaps this company is not connected to the LDS church “as a business,” but they are certainly connected via individuals. And since the LDS church donated a disproportionate amount of money to the Prop 8 campaign, it follows that a disproportionate effort be made to avoid helping their followers flourish, even indirectly.

if you boycott a business or person in Utah who isn’t LDS, then hopefully they will be understanding about why you are doing what you are doing.

Most of the people on this blog roll are either NOT from California or NOT from Utah.

Fight with your pocketbook. Fight with the media. Fight the LDS church. and a big Thank you to kids in Salt Lake City !! You Rock ! ! ! !

As a Californian with a small, struggling business, in my opinion – by all means, boycott California – particularly any transaction involving sales tax paid to the state. If you come for a visit, stay with friends to avoid the hotel taxes, be thrifty about taxed merchandise, and when you do have to pay sales tax – make it at a glbtq restaurant. But if you do boycott CA businesses in general – let them know why.

You can do what many GLBTQ Californians are doing – trying to only do business with companies that overtly supported No on 8 and GLBTQ people, or that at least stayed out of it and have HR policies that treat GLBTQ employees fairly.

The economy is bad, and now is the time for economic pressure – and if someone claims you’re only hurting GLBTQ Californians – that’s an empty accusation. Californians are going to be hurting for a while, not because of what anyone does today, but because of what our governor and assembly, and local city and county governments, have done, and done not, for the last 10 years (or more depending on who you ask). That big picture world of hurt won’t be lessened by any business from out of state, but, boycotts by people out of state will have more impact now than they would at other times.

I look at it this way: Only a small third of eligible voters in California cared enough to register and then voted no on 8, another third voted yes, and the remaining largest third – didn’t care enough about other people to even bother to vote. Being apathetic to the harm 8 caused by not voting at all, really isn’t all that different from voting for it – it still indicates tremendous contempt for GLBTQ people.

Now, if we could just get Canada to invade and liberate us from the clutches of Arnold . . .

Let me clarify.

68% are Mormons. But they influence the culture and thinking of those around them. Which is evidenced by Utah having the lowest support for equality (on every measure of gay rights) of any state.

While only 68% identify with the religion, over 85% share their beliefs about my equality.

And while 85% is not the same as 100%, it is safe to start with the assumption that any Utah business will oppose your equality and then be pleasantly surprised if they are the rare exception.

I’m not endorsing Ben’s boycott, but I certainly don’t fault him for the way in which he selected his target.

Doesn’t a statistic of 68% rather than 100% sort of prove that not everyone in Utah is like that?

According to Wikipedia, 68% of Utah residents are Mormons.

According to Nate Silver’s Five Thirty Eight, Utah has the lowest level of support for marriage equality (less than 15%). It is the only state in which support has decreased since 2003-04, and there is less support today than any other state had in 1994.

The odds of the owners of any business in Utah being supportive of your rights is miniscule.

Revealing the company name sends the message that their prejudice is not going to remain a dirty little secret.

It is clear that the author of the response sent to Ben assumed that no other potential customer would ever hear of the matter, and so felt free to attack Ben, through accusations about his character and motives, having dismissed him as someone who wasn’t going to give them any money.

The solution is to spread the word, to protect other potential customers, and, given the use of search engines, let this company know that its prejudice will not stay a secret. Let the boycott of one become a boycott of ten, or ten thousand, depending upon the market the business caters to.

Negative publicity will, at least, encourage this company’s competitors to be more respectful of the diversity of potential customers.

I liked your letter, and the response doesn’t merit any more of your time.

One piece is still appropriate and necessary – publish the name of the company so that others can boycott them as well, if they so chose.

The response you received, loaded with anti-gay talking points, from ‘lifestyle choice’ – which is used specifically to overtly support discrimination against GLBTQ people, to the accusation of hypocrisy, which indicates an extreme heterocentric sense of entitlement, reveals a company that does not deserve to make even a single penny from GLBTQ people.

Please reveal the company name so that other GLBTQ people, as relevant, can avoid this company as well.