Wow, this must have been some monumental victory for the so-called new “Civil Rights” movement. Californians Against Hate (gotta love the name), and please take a gander at their website to see just how full of love they are, has announced:
A California gay-rights group announced Friday it is formally ending a boycott of one of Utah’s most high-profile car dealerships.
Fred Karger, director of Californians Against Hate, said Friday the two-week boycott of Ken Garff Automotive Group was being called off immediately, following a series of meetings that included face-to-face discussions between company principals John and Robert Garff and Utah philanthropist Bruce Bastian, a leading gay-rights advocate.
A two week boycott–impressive–probably brought the dealerships to their knees- I’m sure. And, what resulted from this massive boycott?
The former Word Perfect executive said, among other steps, the Garff company would be formally adopting “a non-discriminatory company policy, even though they are pretty much there already.”
Why, the Garff company is adopting a policy they already practiced–non discrimination. Yes. I can see how the gay rights movement is indeed the new “Civil Rights” movement of our time. And, just how is it, again we who oppose genderless marriage on religious and legal grounds are so full of hate? Please.
Messenger and Advocate 
February 28, 2009 at 12:07 pm
So, are you heading over to Buttars-Palooza today? Sounds like fun.
February 28, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I think this is uncharacteristically mean-spirited of you. Are you really complaining about people acting decently? I’ll assume you’re suffering from the flu, or are having a very very very bad day.
February 28, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Nah, it’s pretty characteristic for Guy, when it comes to “them damn faggots.” If completely unidentified parties send envelopes of white powder to an LDS temple, it’s time to attack the gays as evil harbingers of Satan’s rule. If a photo pops up of a vandalized “Yes on Prop 8” sign, Guy’s the first to publicize it as “evidence” of gay and lesbian “hatred.” If a man is murdered for being gay, on the other hand, Guy tends to be quite silent–almost to the point that one suspects that Guy thinks the vicitim “deserved it.”
February 28, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Chino #1 Sorry, man–I’m not following you.
djinn #2
I’m not trying to be mean spirited; but, I am trying to express how ridiculous such a two week boycott was, particularly given the result. This idea of monetary boycotts against people and businesses because they don’t believe the same popular political dogma as a vocal minority segment of society, is absurd. That doesn’t make me mean spirited, or intolerant, however.
Nick #
Always an unparalleled delight to read your informative, intriguing, and always fresh ideas.
August 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Guy,
Boycotts are every individual’s freedom of action, speech, will – something you LDS folks don’t have a clue about since you are told how to think, vote and marry. Oh and the last time a “minority” exercised its freedom to buy where and when it wanted to, it launched the civil rights movement. When are you people going to just ask what Jesus would do, instead of your church elders.
February 28, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Why, the Garff company is adopting a policy they already practiced–non discrimination.
As you are a lawyer, I’m surprised to hear you belittle the difference between an unofficial and unstated practice and an official employment policy that is enforceable under contract law. For those of us who currently have no worker protections, the idea of having a remedy that is enforceable at law is a big deal.
And, if a car company decided that it was in their best interests to adopt a more gay-friendly attitude to fend off bad press, then I would say that the “boycott” or whatever it was was a success. It got Ken Garff to do something they weren’t going to do otherwise, even if it wasn’t a painful concession for them to make. Ken Garff got good press, the Utah Gay community got further movement on workplace protections and a visible story that business-savvy people regard gays as an important demographic. Sounds win-win to me.
And, while we’re on the subject, why isn’t how a company (or its principals) chooses to spend their profits something I should take into account when choosing how to make my spending decisions? Granted, it isn’t the only factor to take into consideration, but I appreciate knowing that I’m not turning my money over to people who will turn around and use that money to work against my interests. This isn’t a question of political preferences, Guy. This isn’t a question where we agree on what kind of a society we want, we just disagree on the means to get there. This is a question of being able to make personal decisions that I should not have to apologize for, and to have my personal relationships treated with equal dignity with the rest of society. It’s a question of being treated like a full member of the human race. You don’t have to agree with me on where I come out, but given my perspective, can you really say that it is “absurd” that the issue should inform my spending decisions?
March 1, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Nate #5
Welcome back, Nate. Again, I appreciate your tone and approach to the comments you make. Regardless if our philosophical differences I respect your input and the way you provide that input.
First, I’m not certain that’s what happened here. I will be the first to admit that I don’t know all the details of this boycott other than what I read in the Tribune, so if I am unaware of some facts, please fill them in, and accept my apologies in advance; however, if the Tribune account is accurate, I have trouble with the following facts:
1. A California group (against hate–of course) calling on a boycott of 56 dealerships in 6 states, despite the fact there was NO evidence of discriminatory conduct or policy by any of the dealerships, let alone all of them. The boycott appears only to have been in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right of expression and voting. This is, in my view, absurd.
2. How many of those 6 states, i.e., CA for example, have specific statutory protections for sexual orientation in place? This is a one size fits all response, completely unwarranted, in my view.
The company did not make any contribution. The Tribune reports it was a personal donation by the Garff matriarch. What evidence is there she is one of the principals of the corporate structure? And, what evidence is there this money was traceable to any profits the company generated whatsoever? Is it fair for you just to jump to those conclusions?
I have real trouble with these kinds of statements, Nate. The popular trend is to make a direct and equal comparison to the the “sexual orientation” movement to the Black Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s (though in reality that movement began even before Lincoln’s time and continues on to this day). I don’t accept this comparison. The two causes are not the same, have never been the same, and will never be the same. Their history is so disparate, the facts between the movements so disparate that any comparison in my view is “absurd”. As a general rule treatment of “gays” is not at all comparable to treatment of African-Americans in our nations history, particularly in this day and age. Comments like being treated an equal member of the human race are hyperbole.
This is a popularly politically motivated battle cry, which confuses many–but it is clear from the Proposition 8 results that African-Americans do not equate the movements at all.
March 1, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Guy,
1) it was the CEO’s wife that gave $100,000, the CEO is a principal, and it’s a closely-held company. You do the math. It’s more than likely that she is a principal as well, and I could find out if I wanted to spend money accessing the corporation records on-line. I don’t, and I think that the presumption is that she has a direct stake in the profits, given the closely held status.
2)Well, Ken Garff owns dealerships in six states: Utah, California, Nevada, Texas, Iowa, and Indiana. Of those, California, Nevada and Iowa have an employment non-discrimination act in place. However, considering that over half of the dealerships and by far the largest ones are in Utah, along with the corporate headquarters, most of the company’s employees fall under Utah law.
3) There are more civil rights movements than one, and if you look over my comment, nowhere did you hear me invoke Dr. King or the African American civil rights movement. I personally find much more in common between the scenarios for Jewish civil rights and Gay rights than the example you cite. In both scenarios, cover is possible, economics is not a debilitating factor, and discrimination was based on both an identity and a lifestyle. But even if anti-gay discrimination were sui generis, so what? Are you trying to say that because it isn’t the same as the Civil Rights Movement, it doesn’t matter? I won’t make any comparisons, I’ll allow my argument to stand on its own merits. I don’t think people should be fired for being gay. I think that company policies that protect workers from being fired because they are gay are good. It is good being gay has nothing to do with your job, and when people are fired for being gay, it is an assault on that person’s dignity. Legal protection against getting fired because a person is gay reinforces norms that say that people are entitled to respect and have an effect beyond the protections themselves. That is a good thing. Do you disagree?
March 1, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Nate #7
More than likely? You don’t think the Tribune researched this? Do you think the Tribune hid this fact (whether she was in fact a principal) in their reporting? This really misses the point, anyway. This boycott seeks to punish a company for something it didn’t do. The corporation didn’t make the contribution, and there is NO evidence it has ever discriminated against anyone. If there is such evidence, please reference it with a link.
I still think this fact is beside the point. What evidence is there that Garff ever discriminated against anyone, Utah law or any other?
And, perhaps you did not. But, every major media organization and gay rights groups invoke it all the time. It’s even referenced (erroneously–in my view) in some court decisions. You know this as well as anyone. The whole social justification is that once there was racial discrimination against blacks and marriage. Now there is discrimination against gays. That’s the main argument and thrust, and in my view not even remotely the same.
I do agree to this extent: It is a good thing (and good public policy) that people not be fired from their job either because of race, creed, color, religion, political persuasion, sexual orientation, eating habits–you fill in the blank. It is a good thing and good public policy that good workers who perform well in their jobs keep their jobs, and not lose them without just cause; however, even in CA at will employees can be fired with or without cause–even if they are good workers.
March 1, 2009 at 9:29 pm
#6:
As a general rule treatment of “gays” is not at all comparable to treatment of African-Americans in our nations history, particularly in this day and age.
Guy, could you please clarify for us who or what “gays” (quotation marks included, as used by you) are? Is this your way of suggesting a rather cynical viewpoint that there is no such thing as a gay person? If I were to refer to LDS persons as “quote Mormons, unquote,” I suspect you’d be quick to see it as a comment suggesting that LDS are not, in my opinion, true Mormons. Of course, if your intent was something entirely different, I’d be pleased to understand your intended meaning, particularly in terms of what difference you see between gays and those represented by the “quote gays, unquote” usage you employed.
Your suggestion that the treatment of homosexual persons in this country “is not at all comparable” to the treatment of African Americans in this “day and age,” is unfortunate. So far as I’ve been able to observe, Guy, you consistently decline to acknowledge that anyone is targeted for violent crimes in this country, let alone murder, for being gay. It seems that in your personal moral world, it’s perfectly excuseable to target those “quote gays, unquote,” since you’ve chosen to see them as the “disposable wicked.”
March 1, 2009 at 9:41 pm
The odd thing about this story is that the remedy granted was appropriate for an injury that did not actually occur. Ken Garff will be adopting a formal non-discrimination in employment policy that will potentially benefit victims of sexual orientation based employment discrimination.
However, the offense that led to this boycott in the first place was a significant contribution on behalf of Proposition 8, and it is not as if Garff has promised or can promise that neither he nor anyone in his family will ever make such a contribution again.
May 27, 2017 at 5:49 am
I read this post completely on the topic of the resemblance of newest and earlier technologies, it’s amazing article.
March 2, 2009 at 12:00 am
Guy,
I’m gonna have to insist that you read my comments a little more closely. My point in this discussion is that whether or not you think it is absurd, the folks staging the boycott got exactly what they wanted, which was to get the company to capitulate and make a goodwill gesture toward the gay community. Whenever a business does this, it sends the message that gays are a powerful demographic that companies should try to woo and not offend. Ken Garff Automotive’s gesture is neither empty nor meaningless to its workers in Utah, Texas and Indiana. Even if the company has never fired anyone for being gay in the past, having the reassurance that you can’t be fired for having a picture of your partner at your desk creates a culture where people don’t have to cover and where openness and honesty can flourish.
Whether or not Katherine Garff is a member of Promontory Auto Group, LLC (the parent company of Ken Garff Auto Group), her husband is their CEO and it’s a family company. And no, I don’t think the absence of a mention in a Trib article is evidence that she is not a member of the LLC. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. If it makes you feel better, order the principal information for Promontory Auto Group, LLC from corporations.utah.gov. Then when you find out that those are all LLCs, go ahead and order the principals of those. Let me know what you find out.
I know that some people make the race comparison. However, I didn’t, and it had no bearing on the point that I was making. Gays have been told too long that our relationships aren’t real, that our feelings aren’t real, that we’re incapable of telling the difference between love and lust. We are, in other words, just animals. It is very much a question of humanity. Am I as capable as a straight man of loving another human being? I think I am. When you argue against same-sex marriage, this is what I hear. I hear that my feelings are not real and that I am incapable of understanding what love is. That’s dehumanizing, and whatever analogies you use to describe it, the core concept is the same. Given that, why shouldn’t I prefer to do business with people who view me as a full person?
March 2, 2009 at 7:57 am
Nate #11:
I guess my point is that the boycott folks had no right to institute a boycott against this company. Why should the Garff Corp. have to capitulate to anything? They did nothing wrong. You have not provided me with any specific evidence they discriminate(d) against anyone.
Is it your position the gay community should be able to target anyone or any business to win concessions to which they are not entitled, for behavior that has not occurred?
And, I disagree. It might have meaning if they routinely discriminated against gays and you had proof of that discrimination. The reality is just the opposite. So, in my view it is not only meaningless, it is dangerous and extremely poor public policy.
Some? Matt, you’re the only person in this debate with whom I have exchanged ideas who apparently is not making the comparison. The VAST majority not only make the comparison, but demand we accept that the movements are in fact the same. And that there should be equal results.
Please. Not only have I never suggested that, I don’t believe it to be true. Period. I have very valid legal, constitutional and public policy reasons for opposing genderless marriage. It has nothing to do with what you perceive my prejudices to be.
March 2, 2009 at 9:35 am
Mark D #10
Exactly!
March 2, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Huh? My rights as a consumer in a capitalistic society are to spend my money as I please. I don’t need a reason not to buy from someone, and I don’t have to have a good reason to boycott someone. My rights under the First Amendment allow me to urge others to do the same as long as I’m not committing defamation. The people organizing the boycott did not engage in slanderous conduct (i.e. they didn’t say that Ken Garff Auto Group sent the money themselves), nor did they portray the situation in a false light. They said that people are paying money to Yes on Prop 8 with the profits from Ken Garff Auto. This appears to be true. Whether you think that’s a good reason or not doesn’t matter; they did it, and they had the right to do it.
A) it’s not a corporation; it’s a wholly owned subsidiary of Promontory Auto Group, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company.
B) They don’t have to capitulate. It’s their right to do whatever they want. They weighed the costs and benefits, and presumably behaved rationally given the information they had at the time.
Yep–just like everyone else in America. And people demand concessions even though conduct hasn’t occurred all the time–it’s called contract law.
A) Nate.
B) Don’t care–my argument stands on its own merits. Let me know when you want to argue about the merits of my proposition. Instead of engaging my argument, you are making the exact same argument other people are. You are saying that since the Civil Rights Movement comparison is false, then gays don’t have any claim for rights. This is fallacious.
OK, Guy. I’ll make you a deal. I will agree not to take your arguments personally if you agree that statements like calling gays “objectively disordered,” saying that gay people “come from a “very immature emotional frame of reference,” pick from a menu of “umpteen” gender options, “play house,” and live an “illusion,” are all things that say that I am not as fully human as someone who is straight. Second, I will agree not to take your arguments personally if you will agree that public policy arguments about same-sex marriage based on stereotypes about men and women are degrading to gays and sexist. And I will agree not to take your arguments about same-sex marriage personally if you agree that gays should have legal protection for their relationships (without the name “marriage” being used) and protection from workplace and housing discrimination; or if not, spell out why not in evidence-based arguments.
I know I have no right to ask for these concessions, but I am asking you to do these things because I’m worried that after your experience with Prop 8, your opposition to same-sex marriage may have blurred into opposing anything gay altogether. I don’t think this is the case, but some of your rhetoric could give off that impression. I am hoping you will set the record straight.
March 3, 2009 at 8:13 am
Nate W. #14 (Sorry, Nate I referred to you as Matt, elsewhere–don’t know where I got that name).
I don’t disagree with this; but, you as the consumer did not institute a boycott against a business which is not currently or apparently in the past has not practiced discrimination. The boycott was instituted against this business–and other boycotts against other businesses–not because they practiced discrimination in the work place, but because someone who might be related to the business in some way exercised their own constitutional rights by voting a certain way and donating money in a political campaign. That, in my view is inappropriate and damages the legitimate political process. I also disagree, by the way, with the Prop. 8 folks who sent out letters threatening to publish the identity of businesses or people who gave to No on 8. Those people had every right to donate to No on 8, because that is their fundamental constitutional right to do so. All people should enjoy that right without fear of repercussion–regardless of their side.
You disagree–fine. But, we’re not really arguing the same thing here, Nate.
I don’t think so, Nate. I am saying the two movements are not analogous; but, more specifically there are constitutional and public policy arguments against courts creating a new fundamental right to genderless marriage and also creating a new suspect class of individuals. Again, you may disagree with those constitutional and public policy arguments; but, that’s not the same as me basing my arguments on the fact that these two movements are vastly different.
I’ve made those arguments all over this blog, and you are very familiar with them. So, it’s really not accurate to say I’ve not engaged your arguments other than to say the two movements are different.
I would point out, that from a strictly legal perspective, the vast majority of appellate courts across the country which have considered these legal arguments have rejected them–I’ve also written about that elsewhere on this blog. I would further point out that no federal court has found such rights–and it’s unlikely they will.
I don’t agree with theses statements, and have never suggested that I did. Your suggestion that I do–is frankly unsupportable.
I think I’ve stated this over and over, many, many times. Again, this is a concept with which I do agree.
Not true–but I, like many others, have not been particularly happy about the backlash as played out by some in the gay community post Prop. 8. It is tiresome to hear over and over what a hateful homophobic person I am; how intolerant I am, and how backward my thinking is because I don’t swallow lock, stock and barrel the argument that since once Blacks were unable to marry Whites, that we should now adopt genderless marriage–just as those prior “criminal laws” were change.
Have I?
March 3, 2009 at 11:57 am
If your objection is one of propriety rather than rights, then I understand what you’re saying. I just wanted to clarify–when the term “right” is thrown around it tends to confuse the issue. The question is whether a private actor ought to use its free-speech rights to call for a boycott against a company whose principals or people who have a major financial stake in that company. For me, that question is one of degree: I don’t think that it is per se inappropriate to go after a corporation (or in this case an LLC) for the unrelated acts of its stakeholders–the corporate veil doesn’t extend to PR purposes. Exercising a constitutional right does not, and should not, shield a person from private criticism for doing so, just as it should not shield Californians Against Hate from your criticism.
I would determine the propriety of a boycott based on the degree to which the boycott is likely to cause the stakeholder to change his or her behavior versus the amount of collateral damage to innocent parties (I’m anti-collective punishment as a rule). The collateral damage question also includes the terms of letting innocent parties opt out of the boycott. For anyone outside of the targeted party, a declaration of non-hostility should suffice. I think we may disagree about the nexus involved here, but even if the boycott was not proper in the first instance, the decision to call off the boycott based on a gesture of goodwill on the company’s part (even if that gesture is unlikely to have any practical difference) was an appropriate way of minimizing collateral damage.
I think that a better argument against the boycott is (ironically) a privacy argument: what degree of political activity (including donations) can a person undertake in private. The 9th Circuit has a case on this issue (although they characterized it as a First Amendment question), saying that de minimis in-kind contributions are not subject to disclosure laws. As far as persecution and boycotts go, I’ve written a little about it here; I’d love to know what you think.
March 3, 2009 at 12:12 pm
That’s fair, but I think that it doesn’t get to the heart of the question. The arguments you reference here are not why the rights shouldn’t be granted, but rather why the court shouldn’t be the one to grant them. I’m saying that, regardless of procedure, these rights should be granted. Those are the arguments that I want you to engage (granted that you started to here, but you didn’t respond to my objections on that thread.
As a side note, I’ve put up several posts about the questions involved, and I’d love for you to give your comments. They are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
March 3, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Yes. I was just concerned when you posted the Paul Mero quote that listed the things that I was talking about. Thanks for resolving that concern.
March 3, 2009 at 9:08 pm
#12:
I guess my point is that the boycott folks had no right to institute a boycott against this company.
Huh? Guy, please apply your “vastly superior to any of the Justices of the California Supreme Court, or hell, even the SCOTUS” skills for me, by explaining just what constitutes the “right” or “lack of right” to institute a boycott.
Really, Guy. Educate me! I never knew there were conditions on the “right” to institute a boycott!
March 6, 2009 at 12:03 am
Nate, 16, 17, 18
Thanks for the links. I will check them out–but may be awhile as time is short at the moment. I will look them over and hopefully reply.
May 24, 2017 at 4:41 am
Hello. remarkable job. I did not imagine this. This is a remarkable story. Thanks!